Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Meat, Cereals and Dairy Products (Common Market Fund)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at current levels of imports of meat, cereals and dairy produce, how much he estimates the United Kingdom will pay in a full year into the Common Market Fund in respect of these commodities.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): An estimate on the basis suggested has not been made because it would be unrealistic and, therefore, misleading.

Mr. Davidson: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. No doubt he saw a recent article in the Financial Times in which a certain correspondent estimated that the cost would be about £800 million per annum, Whether this is an accurate or an inaccurate figure, does he not agree that this is evidence that we must become self-supporting in these three groups of commodities? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the reason for this is that we must strengthen our bargaining position and save £200 million to £300 million per year? I should be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman,

in answering this question, could also assure the House that imports from Rumania, which have been agreed very recently as part of a larger deal, will not include—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions prevent other hon. Members from asking questions.

Mr. Davidson: —goods in these three categories.

Mr. Hoy: I can hardly connect the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question with the main Question. New arrangements for financing the Common Agricultural Policy are due to come into effect on 1st January, 1970. Therefore, it is misleading to proceed on the basis of the present arrangements.

Mr. Jay: If these estimates could be made and published in 1967, why cannot they be made now?

Mr. Hoy: An estimate was made then. My right hon. Friend knows that circumstances have changed considerably since then. I would prefer to deal with that question when my right hon. Friend puts it to me later.

Mr. Turton: Is no attempt being made to bring the 1967 White Paper up to date?

Mr. Hoy: Obviously it is kept under review all the time. In view of the substantial changes which are bound to take place as from 1st January, 1970, it would be unrealistic to try to do it at present.

Agriculture (Weather Conditions)

Mr. Hawkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the financial plight of the agricultural industry, following the weather conditions over the past 12 months, if he will immediately initiate talks on a special price review.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): No, Sir, but we will review the situation when we see what the harvest is going to be like.

Mr. Hawkins: I rather expected that answer. If this is so, what will the Government do now to give extra cash


to the farming community, because the Minister's only solution of a tax adjustment proved to be a big hoax?

Mr. Mackie: We are aware that many farmers are short of cash because of last year's harvest. The results of this year's harvest are not yet known. We are waiting to see what the harvest is like this year before we decide what can be done.

Mr. Mackintosh: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but does he think that the farming industry, given the conditions mentioned in the Question, can achieve the targets set out by the Government on 12th November? If not, will he lengthen the period or revise the targets?

Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend has a Question down on these lines. I will answer it when we reach it.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend made certain announcements about administrative changes which the hon. Gentleman himself later admitted produced nothing new? Does the hon. Gentleman think that those changes will be adequate to meet what is an extremely serious situation?

Mr. Mackie: We have emphasised to hon. Members opposite during our exchanges on this subject that if they have any individual cases of farmers, or for that matter collective cases, they can give us, we will study them very carefully.

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to help farmers who have been unable to cultivate and sow their land because of the excessively wet spring.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the hardship being suffered by farmers as a result of the adverse weather conditions during the past year.

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that farmers in the area surrounding Peterborough and Ramsey suffered further severe interference and loss through excessive rainfall in May; and whether he will provide

help for those who have suffered further financial hardship.

Mr. John Mackie: My right hon. Friend and I went into this most fully during the debate on agriculture on 16th June. I have nothing yet to add to what was said on that occasion.

Mr. Jopling: Is not the answer to my Question, "Nothing"? Now that the Minister's cruel and bogus promise about taxation relief has been exposed as a myth and groundless, will he not do something for a change, such as introducing new drainage schemes?

Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Member was sure that the answer was to be "Nothing", I do not know why he wasted time in putting the Question. We have looked at drainage schemes, but they would not help farmers immediately. We are looking at the actual working of the schemes, and I have nothing to add to the various Answers to Questions which I have made on this subject.

Mr. Morrison: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Price Review assumed average weather conditions in 1969? Since that assumption has already been proved wrong and conditions were very bad in the sowing season, why has the hon. Gentleman not other proposals to make?

Mr. Mackie: Any Price Review assumes normal weather conditions, and figures are worked back to normal weather conditions depending on whether they are good or bad. But, as I have said, let us see what the harvest will be before we make up our minds that something must be done.

Mr. Ashton: What drainage grants will be available to these farmers? Will my hon. Friend encourage drainage contractors to extend their field of activity?

Mr. Mackie: All drainage grants on arable land are at 50 per cent., but on hill land where conditions are particularly difficult an extra 10 per cent. is given. If drainage went ahead too quickly the drainage contractors would be overloaded. Meanwhile we have no scheme of encouraging drainage contractors other than the fact that much has to be done and it is a fairly profitable occupation.

Mr. Shinwell: If farmers want more money when weather conditions are bad, do they give any of it back when conditions are good?

Mr. Mackie: That is a pertinent point put by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend's suggestion of an interest-free loan scheme has been rejected because it would create a precedent. Is he aware that in 1947 many precedents were created in a particularly disastrous year, including payments of subsidy on flocks prior to the disaster? Why is he not ready to create a precedent now?

Mr. Mackie: I have all the figures, which are very complicated and long, for the 1947 and 1953 floods. If my memory serves me aright, about 600,000 to 800,000 acres were flooded and under water. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the situation in Scotland and the hill areas was far more disastrous than it was last year. There was a disaster fund to which the Government contributed. The situation was altogether different.

Littleton Brook (Dredging)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of recent flooding, due to failure to dredge Littleton Brook, resulting in loss of horticultural production and danger to public health through flooding of sewerage installations and latrines; and whether he will make a 50 per cent. grant to the appropriate authorities for dredging Littleton Brook this summer, thus facilitating River Board responsibility from next autumn.

Mr. John Mackie: I wrote to the hon. Member last week and, as he now knows, a scheme for the improvement of Littleton Brook, designed to alleviate this flooding problem. has been prepared by Worcestershire County Council. My right hon. Friend received the council's proposals last month and hopes to be able to approve them for a 50 per cent. grant shortly.

Sir G. Nabarro: Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that that 50 per cent. grant will be of the order of £1,000 and will be subject to the works being completed this year so as to prevent a repetition of the disastrous flooding

which caused me to go paddling on Whitsuntide Monday afternoon and of the loss of horticultural production entailed?

Mr. Mackie: I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's Whitsuntide afternoon. The estimated cost is over £2,700; 50 per cent. of that will be £1,350.

Meat Prices

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decline in meat imports, excluding bacon, he estimates will occur in 1969–70; how much additional meat will be supplied from home produced sources, percentum and as tonnage; what estimate he has made of the change in meat prices in 1969–70, as a result of imports substitution; and whether he will make a statement on meat prices.

Mr. Hoy: Total carcase meat imports are not expected to decline to any significant extent in 1969–70. Additional marketings of home-fed supplies have to some extent been delayed by bad weather at the start of the season, but are expected to increase between now and the end of 1970. The meat market is likely to remain generally firm throughout the year, however, but precise estimates of supply and prices over the next twelve months are not possible because of the many variable factors involved.

Sir G. Nabarro: That is a very evasive answer. Can the Minister not give us some tangible information in the context of these imports to show how his policy of import substitution is succeeding? What is it worth in terms of increased home production and decline in meat imports, which is the purpose of the Question?

Mr. Hoy: It is very difficult to forecast, certainly in farming, exactly what the prospects will be 12 months ahead, but we expect a much larger contribution from our own home supply.

Agricultural Industry (Financial Position)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current assessment of the financial position and prospects of the agricultural industry on capital and on income account.

Mr. John Mackie: Assessments were given in the Annual Review White Paper.


I see no purpose in a reassessment now when firm data cannot be available and when it is too soon to judge how the year as a whole may turn out.

Mr. Hill: Is it not abundantly clear that agriculture is faced with an absolutely unprecedented financial crisis? In those circumstances, if the Government cannot give any positive help, why is it proposed to do positive harm by penalising the maintenance of agricultural land and buildings? Can the Minister say what he is doing, together with his right hon. Friends, to dissuade the Treasury Ministers from pursuing Clauses in the Finance Bill which will do positive harm to agriculture?

Mr. Mackie: I agree that in certain cases and in certain areas farmers are facing financial difficulty, but it is not absolutely clear that this is the case in agriculture as a whole. If the hon. Member goes to parts of the country other than his own, he will know that some areas are looking remarkably well. There are high prices for stock and everything else. As to capital investment, the hon. Member should look at the figures, which have risen from £167 million in 1963 to last year's £211 million. So there is no lack of investment.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister entirely unaware that farming income fell substantially last year, and that credit is extremely difficult to get, and extremely expensive if it can be got? If the hon. Gentleman still believes in the expansion programme, how is it to be financed?

Mr. Mackie: As I have been trying to point out to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends, if they know of any case where expansion will be restricted by lack of genuine credit for a creditworthy farmer and will let us know, we will look into it.

Fallow Acreage

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tillage acres are being left fallow this summer; how this compares with the trend in previous years; and to what extent over the last 12 months weather conditions have prevented crops being harvested or sown.

Mr. John Mackie: Information about the fallow acreage in England and Wales

this year will not be available until the June census has been processed. In recent years fallow has been about 200,000 acres. It is expected to be appreciably higher this year. The higher fallow acreage and the reduced yield of crops last harvest are a measure of the poor weather conditions over the last twelve months.

Mr. Hill: Is it not the case that much of our land is in a worse physical state than ever previously recorded? Therefore, is it not essential that such things as drainage schemes and systems should be thoroughly and properly maintained? That being so, will the Minister consider the argument in the last Question, which is that it is vital that the Government should not discourage the maintenance of agricultural land and fixed equipment?

Mr. Mackie: We will certainly not discourage it by any manner of means, but it is not the case all over the country. I know that there are areas, of which the hon. Gentleman has knowledge, which are in bad condition, but I emphasise that that is not the case over the country as a whole.

Mr. Mackintosh: While I appreciate that the figures are not yet fully available, will my hon. Friend tell us whether the advice coming from the N.A.A.S. inspectors indicates that more ground is being ploughed up in accordance with his own programme, which, I think, aims at 1¼ million acres of cereals by the end of the period?

Mr. Mackie: We do not yet have the figures, and will not have them until we assess the June returns. We are now in process of doing that.

Selective Expansion Programme

Mr. Mackintosh: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the 1968 and the expected 1969 cereal harvests and the 1969 lambing season indicate that in cereals and in mutton the expansion programme outlined by the Government is being achieved.

Mr. John Mackie: Bad weather has given an initial setback to cereals and lamb production in some areas, but it is far too soon to make any valid assessment of progress towards the objectives.

Mr. Mackintosh: If my hon. Friend finds that these objectives are not being achieved, would he consider, for instance, the 1947 Act procedure for giving a deficiency payment on lambs and sheep as at December of last year, rather than on the depleted flocks which have been left as a result of deaths in the lambing crop in the early spring?

Mr. Mackie: As I said to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) earlier, we want to get a proper assessment of the harvest and lamb crops and everything else. As there is a scarcity of lambs, the price will normally be high. But we want to be in a position to assess the position properly and not go in for guesswork, of which there is a lot at the present time.

Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that he suggested that I exaggerated when I said in the debate a fortnight ago that some lamb crops were down to 20 per cent.? Has he any figures now to suggest that that estimate was not right? If not, why not?

Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, his assessments were of flocks in Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would be in a better position to reply to that Question.

Farm Productivity (Price Review Figure)

Mr. Mackintosh: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the present knowledge of the quality, weight and yield of last year's harvest and of the expectations of this year's harvest resulting from a wet and late spring, the estimated figure for the increase in farm productivity this year included in the 1968 Price Review is still his Department's official estimate.

Mr. John Mackie: The gain from greater efficiency is assessed on the basis of taking one year with another. We see no reason to change that assessment, and it would not really be useful to speculate about the outcome for the 1969–70 farm year, which has just begun.

Mr. Mackintosh: But will not my hon. Friend appreciate that if in two consecutive years this efficiency factor does not operate, and if costs rise much more sharply than expected due to the extra

feed and other costs faced by the industry, the resulting squeeze on profits and income will make the Minister's worthy efforts for expansion much more difficult?

Mr. Mackie: I appreciate that the review of the efficiency factor was made in 1966 and again in the spring of 1969. If we see that two years will have a big effect we shall naturally have to look at the matter next time.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Minister's answers to this Question and to the three previous Questions seem to indicate that he will give long-term consideration to overcoming the special difficulties of last year and this. Does not he see, after his visit to the East Midlands and East Anglia a fortnight ago, that we want something more positive than that if farming is to make the contribution we expect it to make?

Mr. Mackie: Although I twice made official visits, I have also made unofficial visits, and the improvement since my last official visit is quite remarkable. [Interruption.] Well, it is. I just ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient until we see what the harvest will be like.

Agriculture (Credit)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what credit is available to British agriculture for normal working capital to enable farmers to achieve the increased production that is required by Her Majesty's Government to help solve the balance of payments problem.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to enable farmers to have access to credit at reasonable rates of interest in order to finance the expansion in those sectors of the industry that he selected in the Annual Price Review; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: Total bank lending to agriculture and forestry at mid-May for working capital and other purposes was £512 million. Credit for working capital is also provided by agricultural merchants and other sources.
At the Annual Review, the Government gave a special impetus to those sectors selected for expansion. There is no real evidence that the programme is not being


adequately financed from existing credit facilities.

Mr. Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Minister must have replied to the wrong Question.

Mr. Mackie: I replied to Question No. 11 on the Order Paper.

Mr. Mills: Does not the Minister realise that unless he solves this problem of agricultural credit he will never get the expansion that the country needs in its present position? If he thinks that he can solve the problem without dealing with it, he is simply whistling in the dark.

Mr. Mackie: I presume that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to Question No. 11. If that is so, the reply is that if he has individual cases he should bring them forward, and we will deal with them.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that most of his answers have been incredibly unsatisfactory up to now and that he seems unable to appreciate the great hardship there is in the farming industry as farmers cannot get credit and achieve what they are asked to do? It is no good saying that everything will be all right at the end of the harvest, because it will be too late to help by then.

Mr. Mackie: I do not think that any farmer I know expects to get the cash before the harvest. Apart from last year's conditions, which I know were serious, when we see this year's harvest we can appreciate the situation. I have probably seen more of the difficulty than the hon. Member has and I do appreciate the situation.

Mr. Stodart: When the Government were asked to take credit for agriculture from under the ceiling which the Bank of England has imposed and put it in the special position which certain exporters enjoy, why did the Government refuse?

Mr. Mackie: We have not refused. Farmers are in exactly the same position as exporters.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg

to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to relieve farmers from the difficulties caused by lack of adequate credit.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken and proposes to take to ensure farmers are given adequate borrowing facilities to carry them through their current difficulties.

Mr. John Mackie: None, Sir. Agriculture is a priority category within the credit ceiling, and I am sure that the banks will do what they can within their lending ceilings. Despite current difficulties, I have received virtually no evidence that creditworthy farmers are not getting the credit they require for essential purposes.

Mr. Jopling: Now that the agricultural recession has begun, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Bank of England has written to the joint stock banks telling them that letters expressing pious hopes about priority agricultural borrowing should be virtually ignored and that they should not go beyond the Government's restrictions on credit policy?

Mr. Mackie: As I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first premise, I cannot answer the second part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Morrison: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his reply will convince more and more farmers that the Government are totally opposed to the agricultural industry? Is it not about time that he did something to help the industry?

Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. Maclennan: Whether or not my hon. Friend agrees with the premise of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), would he say whether it is true that the Bank of England has written the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which would appear to run absolutely counter to the Government's policy?

Mr. Mackie: I will look into that point.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House has received varying statements in the last year from different Ministers on this subject? The banks say one thing; Ministers say another. Would he ask one of the Treasury Ministers to make a clear statement to the House which will be understood by farmers and give them the facilities which they expect and need?

Mr. Mackie: I disagree completely with the hon. Gentleman. The situation has been made perfectly clear to the agricultural community—that they have the same top priority within the ceiling. The purpose of the ceiling is to ensure that in the economic situation the borrowing is correct and for the right reasons.

Agriculture (Bank Advances)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total bank advances obtained by farmers in 1963 and 1968; and what were the advances obtained in February, 1969.

Mr. John Mackie: Total bank advances to agriculture and forestry in Great Britain at mid-February in the years 1963, 1968 and 1969 were £401 million, £482 million and £519 million respectively.

Mr. Mills: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that overdrafts have increased under a Socialist Government by £125 million, and when we add what merchants have also provided, we realise the serious position which British agriculture is in under a Socialist Government? This is deplorable. What are the Government to do about it?

Mr. Mackie: There are different views about this. This is probably the faith which the banks have in agriculture and the faith which farmers have in this Government in borrowing.

Sir Richard Glyn: As credit for agriculture is so expensive and hard to get, has a decision yet been made on the proposal to make available interest-free loans to farmers who are worst hit?

Mr. Mackie: Credit for agriculture is not more expensive than credit for any other industry. My right hon. Friend has

very carefully considered the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) of interest-free loans, but he cannot accept it. It would set a precedent with wide repercussions. My right hon. Friend has no power to make such loans, and the administrative difficulties would be very great indeed.

Meat Imports (Slaughtering Standards)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now satisfied that all meat imported from overseas has been slaughtered in accordance with standards applicable to slaughterhouses within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: We do not impose methods of slaughter on supplying countries, but we periodically check on standards of production and hygiene, and take the necessary steps to remove from approved lists in the Official Gazettes any establishments which do not come up to hygiene standards in this country.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to a very good source of information—a senior meat inspector who travels very widely—much of the meat imported to this country is slaughtered under conditions which would be intolerable in Britain? Is not this form of hypocrisy detrimental to the British agricultural industry?

Mr. Mackie: As I have said, we have no control over conditions in countries which supply us with meat. We may deprecate these methods, but we cannot change them. In a good many of the countries from which we import slaughtering is very humane.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my hon. Friend aware that slaughterhouses in the Argentine supplying us have been inspected and are approved?

Mr. Mackie: Yes. As I said, some have been inspected and approved, but others did not come up to standard.

European Economic Community

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish a further White Paper bringing up to date the estimates of the


effect on United Kingdom balance of payments to cost of living of joining the European Economic Community given in paragraphs 73 to 89 of Command Paper No. 3274.

Mr. Hoy: Not at present, but my right hon. Friend will bear my right hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Jay: As the only change of circumstances since 1967 is that the bill has become much higher, will my right hon. Friend undertake to publish for the benefit of the House and the country the calculations which his Department is now making?

Mr. Hoy: As I said in reply to an earlier Question, and as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, certain changes have to take place as from the beginning of next year. The Community itself has to decide what its policy will be in regard to the Mansholt Plan and other arrangements. My right hon. Friend will understand the difficulty in giving more information until these are settled.

Mr. John Wells: When considering the possibility of entering the E.E.C. from the agricultural point of view, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to match the statement made on agriculture by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on 10th May, 1967, when he gave a specific pledge about our party's attitude on horticulture?

Mr. Hoy: When this comes to be examined it will have to be taken into account, but we cannot do so until certain action is taken elsewhere.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in Cmnd. Paper 3274, although there is speculation on the analysis of the effects on this country in joining the Common Market, there was nevertheless a calculation that the increase in cost of foodstuffs would be of the order of 10–14 per cent. and that is equivalent to an increase in the cost of living of 2½ to 3½ per cent.? This is a matter of serious concern. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to assure the House that we shall have a White Paper giving further calculations very shortly?

Mr. Hoy: Of course these things have to be taken into account. Food prices affect the whole Community. Until we

hear what is to happen in the E.E.C. we prefer not to make a decision at the moment.

Mr. Turton: As The Guardian has estimated this cost on balance of payments at £593 million net and the Financial Times estimated the cost to the consumer at £844 million, surely the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to this House and the country to publish accurate figures as quickly as possible?

Mr. Hoy: As I said, we are bound to take these things into consideration, but it would not be wise to do so until the Community has made up its mind. Then, obviously, any Government are bound to take account of what the effect would be in their own domain. This is the assurance I gave the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department is making of the consequences of the British and Commonwealth sugar producers of British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Hoy: The effect on British and Commonwealth sugar producers of United Kingdom accession to the European Economic Community would depend on the circumstances at the time and it is not at present possible to forecast what these might be.

Mr. Hooley: Since, apparently, our application to go into the Common Market is on the table, would it not be wise to examine the situation as of now as it would affect Commonwealth sugar producers? I understand that it would be catastrophic for countries like Mauritius and Fiji, which depend upon the British market.

Mr. Hoy: Yes, indeed. I can comfort my hon. Friend by telling him that we have these commitments to the Commonwealth of which I spoke earlier. We have already told the Six that we have a contractual obligation under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement until 1974. I think that this can be accommodated under the arrangements of the Six. Certainly, we would wish to discuss how the interests of the developing Commonwealth countries under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement could be safeguarded even in the longer term.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What has been the advantage to Commonwealth countries, particularly Mauritius, Fiji and the West Indian islands, of the Agreement in the last six years? How much would they lose if we were to join the E.E.C.?

Mr. Hoy: They have had stability and assurance of a market, which has been distinctly beneficial to them. This we would wish to continue.

"Oven-fresh" Food

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek powers to ensure that food described on sale as oven fresh has not been deep frozen and thawed.

Mr. Hoy: The use of the description "oven-fresh" is subject to the general control of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence that food which has been frozen twice can cause food poisoning? Will he have another look at this matter?

Mr. Hoy: I am prepared to look at it, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that local authorities have power of enforcement and any cases of food poisoning that occur should be drawn to their attention.

Beef Cattle

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total of beef cattle fattened at home in 1968; and what he estimates the totals will be in 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Hoy: Just over 3,600,000 home-fed fat cattle were marketed in the United Kingdom in 1968. The number this year may be slightly lower, mainly because of heavier calf slaughter in 1967 and the aftermath of the foot-and-mouth epidemic; but the number of young animals now on farms leads us to expect a worthwhile increase in 1970 as part of our selective expansion programme.

Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that prediction is not likely to be fulfilled, for two reasons? The first is the continuing high cost of credit to beef producers, and the second, and by no means the least, the sky-high prices for winter fodder last year?

Mr. Hoy: Despite what has happened, these are our expectations. The figures that we have give us reason to be confident that we shall achieve what we want to achieve.

South American Beef (Importation Ban)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what preparation he is making to put into effect the ban on the importation of South American beef on the bone this autumn.

Mr. John Mackie: As from 1st October licences now in force for imports of carcase meat and offal will be revoked and replaced by fresh licences valid only for boneless beef.

Mr. Farr: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is fundamentally important that there should be no postponement of the date of 1st October for the ban on boned beef, whether tariff reductions have been arranged or not?

Mr. Mackie: We fixed the date of 1st October because we thought that it would give reasonable time for people to make their arrangements. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is looking into the tariff situation.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave apprehension among housewives that, in view of the expected scarcity of meat supplies from home sources, there will be a substantial increase in prices as a result of the Government's unwise acceptance of the unfounded allegations in the Northumberland Committee's Report? Can he say how far the Government have progressed in coming to a decision to abolish the 20 per cent. ad valorem duty on boneless meat?

Mr. Mackie: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering the last point and there will be an announcement shortly. On the point about housewives being apprehensive, we know that beef prices are high, but we do not expect them to get any higher. If we can get an adequate supply of boneless meat, we should keep prices fairly steady.

Mr. Stodart: May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to listen to the voices


behind him? Will he accept that the disaster to the nation caused by the foot-and-mouth outbreak last year cannot be compensated by the sort of action proposed?

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is sufficient of a democrat to listen to all voices. Whether one takes action after listening is a different matter.

Agriculture (National Insurance Contributions)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to the agricultural industry of the recently announced increases in National Insurance contributions for 1st November, 1969, to 1st April, 1970, and in a full year subsequently.

Mr. John Mackie: The cost to the agricultural industry, taken as the cost to employers on behalf of their workers, is estimated at about £600,000 in the months November, 1969, to March, 1970, and about £1,500,000 in a full year.
In the same periods equal amounts will be contributed by workers themselves. For self-employed persons on their own behalf the figures for the relevant periods are £800,000 and £2 million.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that these increases will be taken into account in the price review? Does he realise that this is another additional burden which the farming industry must carry for at least five-and-a-half to six months without recompense until the price review comes? In the present circumstances this is absolutely intolerable.

Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, price reviews while his party were in power were always made on the basis of back prices. We are not doing anything different. Agriculture is not bearing any greater burden than any other industry.

Cyclamates (Labelling)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the United States Food and Drug Administration to introduce new labelling regulations for food products and beverages, artificially sweetened

with cyclamates, which will necessitate indicating the precise amount of cyclamate contained therein; and whether, in the interests of safety and public health, he will consider amending the current United Kingdom regulations relating to the labelling of such products.

Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend is aware of the labelling proposals which the United States Food and Drug Administration is now considering. While we are continuing to keep the use of cyclamates in the United Kingdom under review, my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends see no justification for introducing similar provisions into our regulations.

Mr. Hall: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this action by the United States authority shows the mounting anxiety which is felt about the increasing use of cyclamates? Would he not also agree that the consumer has the right to know what additives of this kind have been added to his food so that in the interests of his own health he can limit the intake in any given period?

Mr. Hoy: The conditions in America are not the same as they are here. Consumption in America is very much higher than it is in this country. The United States Food and Drug Administration has recently recommended the same acceptable daily intake as ours.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that his reply was perhaps a little complacent? He refers to the intake in the United States compared with the intake in this country. It may well be that in five years' time the intake of cyclamates in this country will be comparable to the intake in the United States. Are we then to wait another five years for this information?

Mr. Hoy: No. We are not complacent. We have examined the matter and keep it specifically under review. The Food Additives and Contaminants Committee has made recommendations to us. We shall be reviewing the situation again. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no complacency.

Farm Property (Interest Rates)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in


considering price review calculations, he took account of increased interest rates on property paid by the farming community.

Mr. John Mackie: Yes, Sir.

Mr. King: Does that apply to purchases not only of land but also mainly of machinery and materials?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, Sir. All interest rates are taken into account in the Price Review. The national farm is treated as if it were a tenanted farm.

Puppies (Export)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to prohibit the export of puppies not accompanied by the owner unless it can be proved that they are over three months old.

Mr. John Mackie: No, Sir.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable public anxiety about the mass export of very young puppies, especially when unaccompanied? Has he not had representations from the Kennel Club and other bodies? Will he look at this matter again.

Mr. Mackie: Yes, Sir. We are looking at the whole subject. The hon. Member's Question, however, concerns puppies over three months of age. As he well knows, it is difficult to know the age of a puppy until its incisor teeth come through, which is usually between four and a half and six months of age.

Mr. Shinwell: Why not leave the puppies at home and export the owners?

Commonwealth Sugar Agreement

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which years since 1962–63 there was a gain in foreign exchange for the United Kingdom as a result of purchases of sugar under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement when the negotiated price was below world price; and what was the gain in each year.

Mr. Hoy: In 1963 and 1964, when we paid the exporters under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement about £39 million less and £7½ million less, respectively, than if we had bought the same

quantities from them on the basis of the average world price during the year.

Mr. Turton: Is not the lesson of that answer that when world prices are unduly high the British consumer gains and that generally stability of price is good for world trade?

Mr. Hoy: I agree, and that is what we have attempted to do under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is of advantage both to the British housewife and to developing Commonwealth countries and is an agreement which might be followed in the case of other commodities?

Mr. Hoy: Indeed. The Agreement has brought benefits not only to consumers here but to the countries concerned. Judging by what I have heard in the House, from both sides, I should have thought that it met the approval of the House as a whole, although there are, of course, a few exceptions.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend resist the efforts that are being made to get the Government to change their policy in regard to international sugar agreements of various kinds, because they undoubtedly work in the interest of consumers here and of producers in countries which are utterly dependent on sugar production?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, indeed. We have just entered into the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. We cannot do anything about it before 1971, but we have to have these long-term agreements with the Commonwealth if we are to get the things that we require.

Potatoes

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the increase in the price of potatoes during the first week in June; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Hoy: Four hon. Members have written on behalf of constituents, one of them representing a fish frier's organisation. In addition, officials have dealt with eight written communications; of these, two were from fish friers' organisations, one from a wholesale potato


merchant and the others from members of the general public.
The replies have said that immediately after the spring bank holiday markets tended to be under-supplied and this led to a sharp rise in price. They have explained the main reasons for the under-supply; that the very high prices were short lived; and that by the end of the first week in June farm-gate prices had fallen substantially as adequate supplies of old potatoes were available to meet the limited demand.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sharp increases in price occurred during that week and were extremely disconcerting to the housewife? Is it not possible so to improve our marketing techniques that these very sharp increases in price do not occur?

Mr. Hoy: Indeed. We do not like them any more than anybody else. In the week in question there were difficulties because we had a short working week following the bank holiday. There was certainly a diversion of farm labour to cultivation because of the wet spring. It should also be added that the Potato Marketing Board, in consultation with our officials, took prompt action to release most of the reserve stocks for human consumption.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Catering

Sir R. Russell: asked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the tax imposed on pet foods, he will arrange for doggy bags to be provided in all the refreshment rooms of the House of Commons as is done in restaurants in the United States of America, so that hon. Members and members of the staff and the Press may, if they wish, take away scraps to feed their pets.

Mr. Ensor: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

Sir R. Russell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the main object of the Question was to suggest that the House might give a lead to cafés and restaurants outside, to encourage them to help old-age pensioners and others living on small incomes who have been hard hit by the purchase tax on pet food? Will he, perhaps, reconsider his decision?

Mr. Ensor: My principal occupation at the moment is trying to improve the service and food to Members and their guests. When I have done that, I will consider the other possibilities.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman make certain that the food in the Refreshment Department is maintained at such a standard that it will be acceptable to dogs?

Mr. Ensor: I have understood over the last week or two, at least from what I have heard from hon. Members, that there has been a considerable improvement. I have nothing further to say at the moment.

Mr. Henig: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now announce his plans for improvements in catering services in the Members' Snack Bar.

Mr. Ensor: I have been asked to reply.
During the coming Summer Recess improvements are being made to the kitchen and servery of the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias. It is hoped that this will result in improved service and quality of food.

Mr. Henig: I am delighted to hear that, but is my hon. Friend aware that, whilst we sympathise with him in the problems he doubtless has, many Members are at the moment rather ashamed when they have to take guests into the Snack Bar? Is he aware that charges at the Snack Bar are often very much higher than they are in commercial establishments outside the House, and when he is making improvements will he make sure that there are not price increases?

Mr. Ensor: I do not think my hon. Friend is quite accurate on the question of prices, but be that as it may, we are reviewing at the present time the whole problem of prices and the quality of food and service, and I am sure that by October, when the House comes back, there will be a great improvement.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When the arrangements have been completed, will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear how many guests a Member may take into that Room? Quite recently one hon. Member had four guests there, precluding other


hon. Members. It would be helpful to know what the arrangements are.

Mr. Ensor: We are in process of reissuing the rules and regulations with regard to the Dining Rooms and Cafeterias, and it is hoped that they will be published before the House comes back after the Recess.

Members (Facilities)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve facilities for Members of Parliament inside the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The Services Committee is urgently considering a number of suggestions for improved facilities for Members. I hope that we shall report to the House before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Ogden: With all the respect and friendship that I can muster for my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is not aware that I was asking not what the Services Committee intends to do but what proposals he has? Surely he will remember many things which he wanted to do as a beck bencher and which he now has the power to do.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is right. I am Chairman of the Committee appointed by the House, and my hon. Friend is partly responsible in that sense. I must carry the Services Committee with me. We are considering this matter, and I will do all I can in it.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all I want is a selection of appropriate envelopes and paper, which has been available to hon. Members for the 32 years I have been here, delivered to Ashworth's, where I dictate my letters, and not to be told that I have to cart my own paper up there all round the Palace of Westminster? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea to consider whether the Services Committee gets the support that it should from the Government?

Mr. Peart: I know that the hon. Member wants to do many things. I am always anxious to help her. This is only one item. The Services Committee is

considering the wider matter. I am quite sympathetic to what the hon. Lady wants.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that Members of the House representing Greater London constituencies can telephone their constituencies free of charge while those who represent more distant constituencies cannot? Would he not agree that this is an anomaly which should be ended at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this, and, as I have said, we are looking at these things very carefully. I have taken the initiative on this, and so has the Services Committee, and we are discussing it.

Dr. Winstanley: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that, in the hope of assisting him in his efforts to carry the Services Committee with him, a Motion has been placed on the Paper today, with the signatures of 120 Members of all parties, calling for improvements in the services available to Members to assist them in doing their work?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this. I have been a Member of the House for a quarter of a century now and I am aware of the needs of hon. Members. Members of all parties on the Services Committee are carefully examining the evidence and will come to conclusions. I beg hon. Members to have confidence in those hon. Members.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will extend to Members the provision of Government cars and other facilities made available to take the staff of the House to their homes when the House sits late.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will review the transport provisions for Members who are required to attend the House after midnight.

Mr. Peart: I will certainly bear this suggestion in mind, but there would be a greatly different scale of operation and costs involved in providing such facilities for Members. The facilities for late night staff cater for only about 35 persons on average, leaving on four or five routes to a constant pattern.

Mr. Dickens: But is my right hon. Friend not aware that hon. Members who lack their own private transport are at very serious disadvantage when the public transport ceases in London after midnight, and will he not look at the matter again? Would he not agree with me that the basic requirement is to ensure that hon. Members receive treatment no less adequate than that extended to the staff—in the Catering Department, the Library or the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Peart: I know my hon. Friend feels deeply about this, quite rightly. I understand the point, but there are difficulties here. I will look at this again, but there are difficulties.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware of the considerable expense to which hon. Members are put by having to return home by taxi after midnight, but is he also aware that they are precluded from claiming this expense against tax? Would he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see to it that this is allowable for tax purposes? I regard this as an absurd anomaly.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must realise that that is a different matter, but I will look at the whole question of amenities for hon. Members. I am not unsympathetic.

Mr. Speed: asked the Lord President of the Council what proportion of Members, excluding Ministers, now have the sole use of an office in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Peart: Seventy-eight Members, excluding Ministers, have single rooms in the precincts; that is, about 15 per cent. of the membership of the House, excluding Ministers.

Mr. Speed: Does not the Minister agree that these facilities are not primarily for the comfort and convenience of hon. Members but for the efficient discharge of their duties as Members of Parliament? Will he say when the hon. Members who require these facilities will be able to take them up?

Mr. Peart: That is why not long ago we had a major debate on the new building which would solve this problem. I accept what the hon. Member has said,

but this was the situation long before I was Leader of the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that high priority should be given to the provision of a separate room for the Chairman of each Select Committee of the House, and that this is much more important than providing separate rooms for back benchers who have no responsibility?

Mr. Peart: I accept that. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Representations have been made to me, but I have to balance the priorities.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind another point of view, that putting every hon. Member into a separate room may undermine the real influence of Parliament, end the community spirit and weaken the exchange of ideas between Members? I see no proof that putting people into little holes will improve the services which Members give.

Mr. Peart: Speaking purely for myself, I think that the hon. Member is wrong. I would hope that when we improve accommodation, and this depends on the new building which is a long time away, this will help hon. Members who so wish to have an individual room. Much as I like the hon. Member, I should hate to work with him.

Select Committee Reports (Debates)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will propose a Standing Order to provide time for debate on reports of select committees of the House, within 40 Parliamentary days of their publication.

Mr. Peart: No, Sir. But I will continue to do what I can to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the available Parliamentary time is allotted to debates on such reports.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Lord President recognise that Members of all parties do a great deal of work on these Committees, and that, while in many cases the Government may be quite right in resisting their recommendations, at least the House should know why and do some progress chasing?

Mr. Peart: That may be so, but my hon. Friend must realise that, including


Special Reports, there were 55 Reports from Select Committees last Session, and there have been 31 so far this. I cannot arrange 31 full days. I try to adjust priorities.

Mr. Jopling: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reported a long time ago? Is he aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, having got its way by getting the Government to wind up the Committee, has now not even had the courtesy to reply?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) should not make remarks like that. He knows full well that I have great sympathy with what was done in that Committee, but it was appointed for an experimental period, and he must await decisions.

Select Committee on Defence

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee on Defence, in view of the recommendation by the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Mr. Peart: I have carefully noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. I do not, however, anticipate any further new Specialist Select Committees this Session.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are many issues of an extremely complex nature facing this country, such as the dumping of chemical weapons in the sea, multi-rôle combat aircraft, which simply do not lend themselves to Question and Answer, or, indeed, to verbose debate? They are very definitely matters which affect this country, and would be properly dealt with by a Select Committee.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this, but I cannot go beyond what I have said.

Mr. Goodhew: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the original supplementary question mean that he does not rule out the possibility of such arrangements next Session?

Mr. Peart: I have already said that we must wait to see how these Committees work out. I have always been in favour of this kind of approach. I have never been opposed to the idea. I am not a reactionary on this, but I think we

should be sensible and wait to see how this form of Committee develops, and then we will come to a decision, which we must report to the House, and it will be for Parliament, in the end, to decide.

Parliamentary Travel Warrants

Mr. Hooley: asked the Lord President of the Council in view of the fact that certain booking offices of British Railways have been instructed not to issue tickets against Parliamentary travel warrants, and that this involves some hon. Members in double booking at extra inconvenience and difficulty, if he will discuss this matter with British Railways with a view to finding a solution.

Mr. Peart: At certain branch line stations, as a measure of economy, full ticket issuing facilities have been withdrawn, because of lack of demand. This means that warrants cannot be exchanged for main line tickets at the stations. At the particular station used by the hon. Member, this new system was wrongly applied, due to a misunderstanding, but there should be no further difficulty in exchanging his warrants.
I will see what can be done to help Members generally.

Mr. Hooley: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the vigour and energy with which he has pursued this matter and hope that the message has got down the wires to the booking clerks? But could he make further representations to British Railways on this, that it should accept warrants, as it ought to do, or accept warrants in lieu of tickets on the train, and stop this absurd double booking nonsense, which is highly inconvenient?

Mr. Peart: I thought I gave a sympathetic reply. I will do what I can on this.

Specialist Committees

Mr. Henig: asked the Lord President of the Council on what criteria he proposes the appointment of specialist committees of the House of Commons.

Mr. Peart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 2nd April.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation with regard to


specialist committees is quite unsatisfactory, that there are areas of interest to many hon. Members which are inadequately debated, such as foreign affairs and defence, and for which there ought to be Committees? Ought not the whole matter to be looked at again when, clearly, there are no clear criteria for appointing Committees, and when we do appoint them we do not have time, apparently, according to my right hon. Friend, to discuss their findings?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should not use such extreme epithets and language as "unsatisfactory". [Interruption.] Am I to be allowed to answer? I would just point out to my hon. Friend that we have conducted a series of extremely important experiments, affecting many Departments. Let us see how they go. Let us see how they succeed, and then I shall be delighted to consider expanding them further, if necessary.

SOUTHAMPTON AND LIVERPOOL DOCKS (STRIKE)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the situation in the Southampton and Liverpool Docks.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): At Southampton, the entire registered dock labour force of about 2,000 men have been on unofficial strike since midday last Thursday over a claim, under negotiation between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the employers concerned, for an earnings guarantee for working certain types of ship. This action is against the advice of the shop stewards and the union.
At Liverpool and Birkenhead, virtually all the registered dock workers, about 11,000 men, have been on unofficial strike since midday yesterday over a claim that handling of goods at the container base at Aintree which opened on 16th June should be done by registered dock workers and covered by the Dock Labour Scheme, and not as provided in the national agreement of May, 1968, between the Container Base Federation and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
Negotiations on the position at the Aintree base and the similar base at Orsett, near Tilbury, are taking place between the Federation and the Transport and General Workers' Union with a view to amending the national agreement. I understand that they will be meeting again this afternoon at Transport House.
Officials of my Department had talks yesterday with both sides. We have informed the T.U.C. of the situation and are keeping in close touch with developments.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the First Secretary aware that, as a result of the strike, two further ships have been diverted to Belgium to unload? Is she further aware that every feature of this strike emphasises the Government's disastrous retreat from authority, and completely vitiates any undertaking which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give to the International Monetary Fund? What steps is the right hon. Lady taking to prevent this strike spreading to a national dock strike?

Mrs. Castle: I am as concerned as anyone about the consequences of this strike, but I cannot for a moment accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. We have always envisaged that in the first stage of any dispute, however serious, we should use conciliation and the good offices of the union to bring the dispute to an end. There will be a meeting of both sides within the hour. I suggest that we do not ask in this House provocative questions that might jeopardise the outcome.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on this side, probably most of them, feel that the dockers have an extremely good case which needs to be carefully looked at? Is she aware that the whole problem of containerisation and the manning of depots is not confined to Britain, and that the longshoremen's strike in the United States of America was largely concerned with this factor?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that most of us who are connected with the docks feel that it is far better at the moment to leave the situation in the capable hands of Mr. Jack Jones and the executive of the Transport and General Workers' Union than for ignorant


statements to come from hon. Members who know very little about the industry?

Mrs. Castle: I accept, as my hon. Friend says, that there have been difficulties in other countries about the introduction of containerisation. It is seen by dockers as a threat to their survival, and one has every sympathy with their anxieties, but, of course, we are all anxious to avoid in this country the sort of labour troubles elsewhere, to which he has referred.
I repeat that the union is using its best endeavours in this matter, and I think that we should encourage it to do so.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Are the Ministry conciliation officers playing any part in the Southampton strike?

Mrs. Castle: We have kept in touch with the situation in the normal way.

Dr. Winstanley: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the occurrence of these two potentially damaging strikes is an indication that the powers of the trade unions as at present constituted are not too great, but too small, and that there is now an urgent need for constructive legislation on the whole issue and on the causes of industrial strife?

Mrs. Castle: It is a little early to make sweeping generalisations about either of these two strikes, The Liverpool strike is barely more than 24 hours old. The union is in there using its endeavours. Mr. Jack Jones saw the Federation before the strike broke out in an attempt to avert it. There has since been a meeting, and there will be another meeting this afternoon within the hour. We can, therefore, say that a sense of urgency has been brought to play in this situation.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the port authority and the employers in Liverpool have indicated sympathetic understanding towards the dockers' problems? If this had reached the employees through the medium of the Transport and General Workers' Union and Mr. Jack Jones, the dispute might never have taken place?

Mrs. Castle: I do not want to make comments about the employers' behaviour, or about the union, of the kind which my hon. Friend is inviting me to

make. Both in Southampton and in Liverpool the employers are clearly willing to negotiate the points in dispute, and I am hopeful that both disputes will be brought to an end in the near future.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware that when the operators of the inland freight depot advertised for workers only five registered dockers applied; of those five, only two turned up for interview; they were engaged and neither of them turned up for duty on the morning for which they were engaged?

Mrs. Castle: These detailed points are matters for the negotiators concerned and not for comment in this House.

Mr. R. Carr: If the national agreement of May, 1968, between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Container Base Federation is to be amended, will the right hon. Lady consider using her good offices to look at the procedure agreement in that national agreement to see whether it can be improved, so that in future difficulties of this kind would have a better chance of being solved without unofficial action?

Mrs. Castle: I certainly will consider that point. I am not withholding from the House the fact that this strike is in breach of procedure and as such must be deplored. I entirely accept that, but I repeat that in both cases the strikes are taking place against the advice of the union officials concerned and the union is using its best endeavours.

FAR EAST DEFENCE (FIVE POWER CONFERENCE)

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, wish to make a statement on the Five-Power Conference on Far East Defence.
The conference took place at Canberra on 19th and 20th June, 1969. Hon. Members will already have seen the communique issued at the end of the conference and will be aware that it was primarily concerned with practical arrangements for defence co-operation in the area during the period of our rundown and after our withdrawal from our mainland bases in South-East Asia by 31st December, 1971.
Malaysia and Singapore reiterated that the defence of their two countries was indivisible and the conference welcomed the substantial progress made by these two countries and the decisions they have taken to develop their own defence capability. The steps taken by these two Commonwealth countries formed an indispensable background to the work of the conference as, indeed, did the decisions announced earlier this year by Australia and New Zealand to maintain forces in the area after our withdrawal.
The conference approved the work already done by the three Advisory Working Groups during the past year, set them a programme of further work and instituted a new Joint Service Advisory Working Group to deal particularly with matters which affected more than one of the Services.
One particular area of importance on which agreement was reached was that of air defence, where the Government of Malaysia announced that it had decided to purchase British mobile radar equipment which will enable the present Royal Air Force station at Western Hill to be closed in September, 1971. The new Malaysian radar will form an important component in the integrated system for the air defence of Malaysia and Singapore in which the other four Commonwealth countries will participate and for which Australia offered to provide the first Air Defence Commander.
Among other practical matters agreed in principle were the establishment of a Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre, arrangements for the 1970 major exercise in which all five countries will participate, and training arrangements for all three Services. The next Five-Power conference will take place some time after the major exercise planned for 1970.
The conference took place on the basic understanding that the United Kingdom maintained its decision to withdraw its forces from the area by the end of 1971. Very considerable progress has been made in the practical steps that need to be taken by the other four Commonwealth countries to establish defence co-operation within the area. The conference was further evidence of the determination to work together for peace and security and firm foundations have been laid for continuing development. Indeed, the

amount of progress that has been made during the past 18 months is remarkable.

Mr. Rippon: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be regarded at home and abroad as most unsatisfactory? It adds nothing to the communiqué and it is based on the unacceptable premise that United Kingdom forces, in the words of the statement, are to be withdrawn from South-East Asia by the end of 1971.
Will the Government adopt the wise suggestion made last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) and, in view of the ambiguities of the Government's defence and foreign policy east of Suez, issue a White Paper? In view of the fact that many of these ambiguities arise from various statements made by the Prime Minister, which is not uncommon, will the Secretary of State make it clear whether or not Lord Shepherd's recent speech in Bangkok represented Government policy?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman say something more about the declaration in the communiqué about the joint exercises which are to continue beyond 1971 and which, in the words of the communiqué, are designed to demonstrate the capability of the United Kingdom rapidly to deploy forces to the area? If our forces are to be there most of the time, why cannot they be there all the time?

Mr. Healey: I cannot help feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) tried just a little too hard to make party points.
If I may answer every one of the five questions in turn, the premise on which the British Government's policy was presented is now accepted by all the Commonwealth countries. One of the most interesting things to me was that there was no interest whatever in the views, so far as they could be understood, put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on his recent tour of Australia and the Far East.
To answer the next question, there are no ambiguities whatever in Her Majesty's Government's policy. Indeed, if there were, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman would attempt to make such polemical party points about it. But the fact is, as he knows quite


well, that we intend to withdraw all our operational forces from South-East Asia by 1971, and this decision is now accepted by the Commonwealth Governments in the area as a firm decision by Britain. No interest whatever was shown to me by anybody to whom I talked in the very ambiguous, obscure, ambivalent and deliberately equivocal statements by the Leader of the Opposition.
As for the statement by Lord Shepherd at Bangkok, of course it represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, so far as I am able to judge from reports in HANSARD, did not on this occasion, as on so many others, take the trouble to read what he said. What he said was that we shall have the capability of providing forces in the Far East after our withdrawal from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia if we think that it is in our interests and it is our duty to do so. This has always been the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
On the question of joint exercises, the total cost of all the training programmes after 1971 which I announced in Canberra will be well under £1 million a year, both in foreign exchange and resources. The cost of our military presence, the withdrawal of which has been attacked by the Opposition, was £80 million in foreign exchange alone and several times that amount in resources. Perhaps the House would find it easier to discuss this question if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us some idea of what his leader means by a modest presence in the Far East.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a good deal of business to deal with.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not expect the Government to abandon their decision to withdraw forces east of Suez in 1971, but the reference he makes to the cost of joint exercises, training and the provision of equipment to Malaysia and elsewhere in that area of £1 million appears to be derisory and is no contribution at all to the defence of that area, should defence at any time be required?
It is precisely because of what I have regarded as ambiguities and misunder-

standings that might arise from the communiqué that I have referred to the matter in Questions. In the circumstances it would satisfy the House—if not the Opposition, at any rate a large number of Members on this side—if a White Paper were introduced to explain the situation.

Mr. Healey: With great respect to my right hon. Friend—I know that he takes this matter very seriously from a non-partisan point of view—all the decisions I announced in Canberra to my colleagues, the other Ministers present—decisions which I have announced in part to the House this afternoon—were foreshadowed in the communiqué on the Kuala Lumpur Conference a year ago, which was printed in HANSARD on 17th June, 1968; were dealt with in more detail in last summer's White Paper Cmnd. 3701; were discussed in at least the last two defence debates; and we described in this year's White Paper Cmnd. 3927 how we are planning, even at the present time, to carry out 84 overseas exercises in 20 countries.
Although I recognise that my right hon. Friend has taken careful note of all I have said on previous occasions, I do not think that the Opposition would be greatly benefited if I were to publish a new White Paper, since it is evident that they did not read any of the ones I have already published.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to say that we are withdrawing all forces east of Suez when he knows that he has committed the Government to 7⅔ major units remaining in Hong Kong and yet does not include the cost of those in his farcical estimate of £1 million? As he has accepted a responsibility for a general capability east of Suez for major exercises there, for a contribution to S.E.A.T.O. east of Suez and for residual colonial responsibilities, would it not be better to leave a small mobile force there rather than shuttle ships, aircraft and men backwards and forwards at enormous cost in money and time?

Mr. Healey: With great respect to the hon. Member, I have always made it clear that we were not withdrawing all our forces east of Suez. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman said so."] Hon. Members do not listen. I


believe that the business of the House would be forwarded more if they did.
What I said is that we are withdrawing all operational forces from South-East Asia. I have always made it clear that we were keeping a garrison in Hong Kong and that we were strengthening that garrison when our forces in Singapore and Malaysia were finally withdrawn.
For the hon. Member to talk about the enormous cost of exercises is—I hesitate to use the word "ludicrous"—slightly foolish, since the total cost of these exercises and the training will be well under £1 million a year after 1971. This type of training and exercise would have to be carried on somewhere in the world, whether or not some of it is carried on east of Suez.

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I put a question to my right hon. Friend from a diametrically opposite point of view? Is he aware that the overwhelming majority of Members on this side of the House warmly welcome the determination of the Government to withdraw by 1971? However, by retaining so many planes, ships and men in a reserve capacity maybe elsewhere, is he not losing a good deal of the valuable saving which would otherwise be achieved?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—praise and thanks from that particular quarter are always extremely agreeable to me.
I want to stress this point very seriously. We do not propose to keep any forces in the European area after 1971 in a general capability, beyond those that we require for our formal responsibilities for the defence of Europe and the seas around it. This will give us a general capability which we can, with the agreement of our allies, deploy elsewhere. We shall, however, still maintain a garrison in Hong Kong which is a constitutional, colonial responsibility, which we retain so long as Hong Kong is a colony.

Mr. Amery: Has not the right hon. Gentleman fallen between two stools? If the Government do not recognise any interests to defend or obligations to discharge, what is the point of maintaining a capability east of Suez? On the other hand, if they do agre with us that there are interests to defend and responsibili-

ties to discharge, would it not be better to enter into precise commitments and make provisions to fulfil them?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman, whose return to the House I welcome for many reasons, said that we are maintaining a special capability for operations east of Suez. This is precisely what we decided to renounce, but we shall have a general capability in Europe on which we could draw if we regard it in our interests or as our duty to do so for operations east of Suez. This is leaving out the question of Hong Kong.
The right hon. Member has substantial experience in this field and will know that the cost of maintaining a permanent presence of operational forces in the Far East with stock-piles, requiring forces to turn them over, to look after them and to defend them, is incomparably larger than the cost of exercises in the Far East, which we would have to carry out somewhere in the world.
I hope that now the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the House he will talk to some of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and explain to them the enormous cost of the commitments to which his Government, when he was a Minister, pledged this country some years ago.

Mr. Dalyell: May I put a question dealing with paragraph 9 of the communiqué? What is the percentage of the British contribution to the proposed jungle school of warfare and, dealing with joint training, is it envisaged that there are any joint O.P.M.A.C. operations with the Indonesians? Has he discovered what the Leader of the Opposition has said about keping forces to resist the Chinese?

Mr. Healey: The British contribution to the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre will consist of a demonstration platoon, probably of Gurkhas initially, and a very small number, a dozen or so, of administrative personnel. Contributions will be made by the other four Commonwealth countries interested in contributing to the Centre.
On the question of miltary aid to the civil community we shall continue this, not only in the context of Five-Power collaboration. When I was in Thailand I was able to tell the Thai Government that we are proposing to do some useful


work for the civil population in a certain part of Thailand, which will be appreciated by them as much as the work we have done in the past.
On the question of Indonesia, my hon. Friend knows that we are in touch with the Indonesian Government about doing some work which will be of use to the Indonesian Government as well.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On the subject of the general capability for rapid reinforcement, we note in the communiqué that the facilities of the armament depot in Singapore are to continue to be available. We feel that this is a great step forward from the right hon. Gentleman's previous rigid attitude about no stock-piling in any shape or form. Will he assure the House that in this armament depot there will be at least adequate contingency stocks for British forces?

Mr. Healey: I have made it clear at all stages in this process that the ability of Britain to reinforce rapidly, and the nature of the forces with which she can reinforce, will depend totally on the will and ability of the local Government in the area to maintain the facilities which they must use. There is no question of Britain continuing an armament depot in the Far East after 1971. But if other Commonwealth countries wish to do so they will have the bonus in that not only will they be able to supply their own forces, but those facilities would be available to British forces, if they were ever required.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: So our stocks will be there?

Mr. Healey: With great respect, I wish that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would listen. What I said is that we shall maintain no operational stocks, no operational manpower in the Far East, after our withdrawal. The attitude of Commonwealth Governments in the area is to some extent handicapped by the total failure of the Opposition to give the slighest indication of what, in practice, is intended by the phrases with which they hope to mobilise Conservative support at the next General Election.

Mr. James Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Liberal

bench welcome this statement? What is the intention either in staff or manpower terms, with regard to the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation after 31st December, 1971? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that British troops should continue to use the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Training Centre after 1971?

Mr. Healey: Dealing with S.E.A.T.O. first, I have made it clear in two White Papers and three debates that we propose to withdraw all our force declarations to S.E.A.T.O. contingency plans before our withdrawal from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia is complete in 1971. At present, we have a small number of medium and low-rank British officers at the S.E.A.T.O. headquarters on the planning side, some of whom at any rate we would plan to retain there after the end of 1971.
As to the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre, we regard it as necessary to retain jungle warfare training facilities. We are grateful to our four Commonweath partners for agreeing to participate in the running of the school with us. The total number of British personnel involved permanently will amount at the most to a platoon and a small number of administrative staff. We plan to train one battalion twice a year for a period of about eight weeks each at the school, and to train units and sub-units of a smaller size for the rest of the year.

Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State has repeatedly chided us about not listening to the words of wisdom which fall from his lips. May I therefore put this point to him? The right hon. Gentleman has said several times that Commonwealth Governments were not interested in discussing with him the Conservative Party's plans for post-1971. May not the answer be that they know he will not be in office?

Mr. Healey: I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. I think that there are two reasons why there was a total disinterest among Commonwealth Governments in the views of the Opposition. First, they have not the slightest idea what the Opposition mean by their views. But, secondly, they believe that they will continue to be in opposition for a very long time.

Dr. John Dunwoody: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his announcement will be widely welcomed as a rational and realistic approach to the difficult problem east of the Suez. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the joint exercises and training programme will be concerned with external defence of our South-East Asian partners and not in any way with internal security or civil disorder?

Mr. Healey: Yes, I can confirm that. It is important for the House to know that any capability or commitment which is intended to be maintained in the area after 1971 by countries outside the area, like Australia and New Zealand, will be strictly reserved for external defence and not for internal security.
Perhaps I might add, in answer to many earlier questions, that the cost of our activities in this area after 1971, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), will be very small compared with what it has been in the past. But anyone who has read the papers, or, newspapers, or the Sunday Times report a fortnight ago, on the Canberra Conference, will recognise that what we are prepared to do is very much welcomed by all our Commonwealth partners.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

NIGERIA

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Com

monwealth Affairs stated that he hoped soon to make a statement on emergency food supplies in connection with the Nigerian civil war. Yesterday, we were warned by the President of the International Red Cross that mass starvation in Biafra could take place within the next few days.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what action we in this House can take to try to have the matter raised in debate, or at Question Time or any other time, so that we can consider what action can be taken by Britain to try to stop the disaster which now seems to be taking place and will continue unless emergency food supplies reach the Biafran-held area?
I am not seeking to move the Adjournment of the House. I have sought to try to raise the matter in another way, but I am now seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because it seems that the House should not remain impotent while there is a threat of mass starvation within the next few days in Nigeria.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. He does not need my assurance that the Chair, like everybody else in the House, shares his distress at human misery wherever it occurs in the world.
We had a Private Notice Question on this matter on Monday, and I refused an application under Standing Order No. 9 on Monday. We have business questions tomorrow. I have had no indication from the Foreign Secretary that he wishes to make a statement today. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of pressing the point that he has raised with the Leader of the House during business questions tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRI BUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
As many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to speak in the debate, many of them with special constituency interests, it will help if speeches are reasonably brief. Mr. Callaghan.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Callaghan: There is no need for a cheer from my hon. Friends. Good wine never needs a bush.
On 19th June the House rejected the Motion moved by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) which called upon me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to implement in full and without delay the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. The House considered that Motion and decided, by a substantial majority, that it did not wish those recommendations to be implemented in full or immediately. Therefore, the Bill follows naturally and automatically from that decision, and it is right that the Government should bring the Bill before the House.
Before the House voted I had given a broad indication of the legislation which would follow if the Motion moved by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was rejected. Therefore, the vote was taken in the light of the proposals that the House knew that I would bring forward, and it will find that the provisions of the Bill are fully in accord with what I said on that occasion.
The House has rejected the view advanced by the Opposition that Parlia-

ment should do no more than rubber stamp the Commission's recommendations. It was right to do so. It would not have been commonsensical to have implemented them. Indeed, it would have put Parliament in a position that it was not intended to be in at the time that the original Bills were discussed—[Interruption.] If there is any doubt about that, perhaps I should quote again the words of Mr. Herbert Morrison, when winding up the debate on that occasion.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman was gerrymandering.

Mr. Callaghan: He may have been gerrymandering on that occasion. But, if so, he was in good company, because the Prime Minister was Mr. Winston Churchill, the Foreign Secretary was Mr. Anthony Eden, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Sir John Anderson. I cannot remember which other ornaments of the Tory Party at that time assisted in the preparation of that speech on that Bill.
However, as doubt is cast on it, let me repeat it now. During the debate on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, 1944, Mr. Herbert Morrison, speaking with the full authority of the Coalition Government of the day, said:
But these recommendations will not be course, be binding upon Ministers. It will be competent for Ministers to accept, or reject or amend the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, subject always to two points, first, that they will have to explain the reasons for their decision, and, secondly, that Parliament must at all times be supreme in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1613.]
Both of those requirements are now being carried out.
When I last quoted these words the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone interjected—somewhat impetuously, as it turns out—to say, in effect, that Mr. Herbert Morrison was dealing with different provisions from those which now appear in the Act of 1949 and that, under the Act of 1944, the Home Secretary was not bound to present a draft Order with his report.
I did not take up this point then, because I was not sure that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was correct. I assumed that it was, because


he is usually careful in validating his references. In any case, it was not relevant to the point that I was making. But I have checked it since, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has since looked at the debates of 1944 he will have seen that Mr. Herbert Morrison was dealing precisely with the same provision as now appears in Section 2(5) of the Act of 1949. In fact, that Section is word for word the same as Section 4(5) of the Act of 1944. I have checked it.
This shows perhaps the dangers—to which I am not immune—of interjecting without having checked on these matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that he was wrong on the limited and rather irrelevant point he sought to make in the heat of the debate. There can be no doubt that in this sphere Parliament is supreme. It is free to act on the reports of the Boundary Commissioners in such manner as it thinks fit.
I am submitting to the House today—and that is the purpose of the Bill—that Parliament has a duty to consider the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in the light of the far-reaching changes which have been recommended for local government by the Redcliffe-Maud Report, changes which are unprecedented in this century, or for some time before. In considering the matter I have taken the view that I ought to be very reluctant to depart from the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions on the question of boundaries themselves, as to where the line should be drawn. But I believe—and the House has accepted this, I think—that Parliament should retain an unfettered control over the questions whether and when, the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners are to be put into effect.
It is for that reason that I am not putting to Parliament any changes in the boundaries recommended by the Commissioners consequential upon recommendations made to me by hon. Members on both sides of the House, a number of whom believe that their views—and there are cogent arguments in support of what they say—are to be preferred to those of the Boundary Commissioners. Some of those Members are here this afternoon.
I have not taken up their recommendations because I do not believe that it would be proper for me to depart from

the literal boundaries laid down by the Commissioners, except where they inevitably arise from the straddle effect of the constituencies inside or outside Greater London.
The Boundary Commissions were not able to consider the proposed local government changes, and so they had to make their recommendations on the basis of the existing local government boundaries. The statutory deadline for submitting ther reports made it impossible for them to do otherwise. Thus, the question for the House, which it has already decided once on the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is whether we should blithely disregard the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission and plunge ahead, even though we know that this will mean a substantial tearing up of the local government map.
The Government and Parliament now have an opportunity, which the Boundary Commissioners did not have, to consider the implications of Redcliffe-Maud and the proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales. Because of the Commissioners' timetable, they were denied that opportunity.
The Government's conclusions are embodied in the Bill, and what the Opposition are saying, as I understand their arguments against us doing this is that although we all know that radical changes of local government are in prospect, Parliament should plunge ahead blindly, and we should merely rubber-stamp the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners which were made in ignorance of the new map proposed by Redcliffe-Maud.
This simply will not do. It would make a foolishness of Parliament to say that we should ignore what we know to be the proposals contained in the Redcliffe-Maud Report and plunge ahead, and probably involve the House and the country in a second round of major upheavals in the political map.
I should explain at this point that Clause 1 of the Bill relieves the Secretary of State of the duty of laying these reports in pursuance of the statutory provisions. As a consequence, I have not laid what is in the hands of so many hon. Gentlemen today—the Boundary Commissioners' Report. This is a technical


term—it is not laid. What I have done is to present it to Parliament, but technically it is not laid, and this, therefore, goes with the relief that I am now seeking from the House of the obligation also to present the Orders in Council. Any suggestion that I am so far in breach of my statutory obligations will not, I think, run very far.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the 1949 Act, and, indeed, in the Standing the House, there is no definition of how such a report can be laid?

Mr. Callaghan: I am aware of that. The last thing that I would want to do would be to shield behind a technicality, and that is why I have not laid these reports today. I am presenting them to Parliament.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Is not the matter of the laying of documents dealt with in the Parliament Interpretation Act, 1948?

Mr. Callaghan: It is, and I am delighted that the right hon and learned Gentleman is so well acquainted with that Act. I am also relieved of the obligation of laying the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in those reports.
The Clause also provides that the Boundary Commissioners are not to submit any further reports before their next general review reports. The purpose of this is to relieve them of the burden of making interim reports relating to the area of a particular constituency or constituencies under Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act. This is part of the whole concept of the Bill, which is to avoid changes in constituency boundaries while local government changes are in prospect.
On their own, the effect of the provisions of this Clause would be that the earliest date on which the Commission would submit their next general review reports would be 1979—that is, in 10 years' time. If these provisions were taken on their own, without any fur-there addition, they could leave it until 1984. [HON. MEMBERS: "A significant year."] I do not know whether it is significant, but I am sure that there will still be a Labour Government in power.
The concept is that while changes of constituency boundaries should not be made when changes of local government boundaries are in preparation, nevertheless, alterations to constituency boundaries should follow as quickly as possible after the local government changes have been made.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: When will that be?

Mr. Callaghan: Accordingly, subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 require the Secretary of State—and this answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—to bring before Parliament for approval a draft Order in Council for the purpose of reactivating a Commission for any part of the United Kingdom as soon as it appears to the Secretary of State that the reorganisation of local government would not make it premature to do so. In other words, when that has been completed, then, area by area, it will be possible—indeed, it is enjoined upon him to do so—for the Secretary of State to lay an Order.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, that it is his duty to lay an Order when that local government reorganisation has been completed, but what is the earliest date at which he envisages that being done?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not propose to go any further than the Prime Minister did when he answered the Leader of the Opposition two or three weeks ago on this point, when he said that the right hon. Gentleman—and here I am interpreting what my right hon. Friend said—was being pessimistic if he thought that the operation would not be complete by 1974. If it is to be completed by 1974, I should expect, under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1, the Secretary of State to be required to bring drafts before Parliament between now and that time for various parts of the United Kingdom.
When the local government legislation has been enacted and it is clear that there will be new local authorities in existence for the Commissions to consult—and this is a very important part of their task—the Secretary of State will seek the approval of Parliament to the Boundary Commissions starting another general review of constituencies forthwith,


and before the time when they would normally be allowed to submit their next general review reports that is to say, before 10 years. The Boundary Commissions would be required to report within four years, and their reports would become their next general review reports, and the cycle of reports would carry on from there.
The period of four years has been chosen in the light of the fact that the Commissions took four years to complete their 1969 reports, but there will be nothing to prevent their reporting earlier if they wish to do so.

Sir Douglas Glover: Does the House understand from the right hon. Gentleman's argument that in principle the Labour Government have already accepted the Redcliffe-Maud Report?

Mr. Callaghan: No. A statement was clearly made by the Prime Minister on the day, and there is nothing that I can add to or subtract from it. If I were to attempt to put an interpretation on it this afternoon the hon. Member would no doubt compare it textually with what the Prime Minister said. I rely on his words. [Laughter.] I can assure the Opposition that their childish denigration, which is becoming so constant, is becoming played out and that they will soon have to change the record.
The other part of Clause 1 is the provision in subsection (4) for decisions about the implementation of the 1969 Reports of the Commissions for Scotland and Northern Ireland to be deferred. A decision to implement could be taken any time up to the end of next March. This arrangement has been proposed in the Bill so as to enable the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to have time to consider the recommendations yet to be made, but expected soon, for local government reorganisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. A decision about the implementation of the recommendations for constituencies can then be taken. If the reports are implemented the provisions of the Bill will cease to have effect. If they are not the Clause will apply in the way that I have just described.
Hon. Members may or may not be aware that today the Northern Ireland Government are publishing—I believe that they have already published—a

White Paper dealing with far-reaching proposals for new local authorities in Northern Ireland. As far as I can see from a first glance, it will drastically reorganise the map thereof. This will need to be taken into account in our consideration. So in England, Wales and Northern Ireland we already have far-reaching and drastic proposals that will affect the political map. Whether they will be on the exact basis of the present proposals I do not know, but that they will exist and take place is undoubted. This Clause will enable us to take them into account.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Seventeen local government areas are proposed for Northern Ireland under the White Paper. Does this mean that the Home Secretary will now consider this question urgently, and that before the year is out he will be able to make a decision whether the 12 Imperial seats will stand in the present recommended constituencies?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; I think that that is broadly what it means. I have not yet looked at the White Paper in detail; I have merely glanced at it. I saw it for the first time only today. I would need to see whether what appear on the surface to be far-reaching changes are as serious in terms of their impact on constituencies as they might be.
I understand that the number of local authorities is to be drastically reduced, as the hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt knows. In the near future, I would hope to be able to tell the House whether the changes are so far-reaching that the implementation of the Boundary Commission's Report for Northern Ireland should be delayed until the new pattern has been worked out. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I understand the situation similarly in relation to that aspect.
I ought to add one other word. Some pundits who have written about this matter are saying that as far as they can see only seven constituencies would cross the Redcliffe-Maud boundaries. I simply do not understand this. I have looked at the question and have had my experts looking at it. I stick by my figure. In our view, 94 constituencies will cross the boundaries, assuming they were drawn on Redcliffe-Maud lines. That would mean that we would have a ripple effect;


the boundaries would be cut into two outside each half of the boundary on either side of the dividing line and this would affect at least double if not treble the number.
I cannot see that we could escape without another complete review of the whole boundaries of the constituencies. Even if we were to go ahead now with the existing recommendations of the Boundary Commissions it would be physically impossible to adhere to the boundaries that the Opposition would like us to put into force. We should have to have another major review and another tearing up of the political map within a relatively short time. I would certainly think that it would be within 10 years.
That is the difference between us. Are we entitled to say that we should have two major—not minor—revisions of the political map within a period of 10 years? I am proposing one major revision of the political map and I hope that it will take place within a relatively short time—as soon as the new local government map has settled down. Although some purists would like us to do so we cannot altogether neglect the convenience of the political organisations and the political parties' constituency associations. I can assure hon. Members opposite that many Conservative constituency associations are very relieved that they will not have to face a double upheaval of this sort in a short time.
It makes sense to say, "We know that local government is to be reorganised, and that it will take place pretty soon. Let us therefore see the shape of the new local authority boundaries, and then let us have a substantial and major review." Certainly, several hundred constituencies will be involved at the end of the day. No fewer than 400 have been involved in this review, and it would mean tearing it up and starting again before the new constituencies had started a composite life of their own and before the new Members had taken the new parishes, wards and rural districts into their own organisations.
Leaving politics on one side—[Laughter.]—for the moment—I am ready to return to it at any time, if necessary—there is an excellent administrative and organisational case for saying that we

should not tear up the map twice in a period of 10 years.
Clause 2 of the Bill would implement in full—I emphasise the words "in full"—the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in Greater London. I have included it in the Bill in this manner and have made no alteration in relation to Greater London. I have included it because it is necessary as well to deal with the parts of the seven existing constituencies which straddle the Greater London boundary. These must be dealt with at the same time as the new constituencies are constituted inside the Greater London boundary, otherwise we would have mutilated parts left lying around.
Here again, the Government had in mind the desire to have the 1970 G.L.C. elections conducted on the basis of single-member electoral areas. To meet this deadline the only answer is for the parts of these seven constituencies which lie outside Greater London to be dealt with in the Bill. The Government's proposals are set out in Parts II and III of Schedule 1. They deal with these seven areas in the simplest possible way, without disturbing more constituencies outside London than is necessary.
As for the 92 new constituencies entirely within Greater London, I draw attention to the fact that of the 70 local inquiries held by the Commission for England 26 were held in the Greater London area. The Commission therefore went to great pains to assess the views of all interested organisations before it came to its conclusions. I suppose that there is general agreement with the recommendation of the Commission that constituencies should be entirely comprised within each London borough. At least, I have heard no dissent from that view so far. I point out, in anticipation of the debate that is to come, however, that this does not lead to parity in electorates. But in my view—and I hope that I speak for the majority of the House—the principle embodied in the redistribution rules of following settled local government boundaries is sound. We should follow that. In my view, it is a most important rule.
I believe that the Commission has been right to give weight in its recommendations to local government boundaries, but let us face the consequence, that this does not mean one vote, one value


That is a principle recently espoused by the Opposition, but the adoption of this part of the report does not mean and indeed, never could mean, that. To take the two extreme examples, the highest and the lowest, in Sidcup, there will be 43,000 electors and in Brentford 75,000 after the redistribution. I could name another half dozen or dozen, if put to it, where they are within reach of each other.
So if hon. Gentlemen wish to argue that the adoption of the Boundary Commission's Report would ensure one vote, one value, they will have to look a little further than some of the illustrations which they have so far. It does nothing of the sort. They have tried to compress it a little, but all the time it is growing away, and the fact that, after these recommendations, two constituencies can have electorates as disparate as 43,000 and 75,000, shows that this is not a very strong point.
The Bill's proposals implement in full the Commission's recommendations for Greater London and I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will be ready to accept Amendments in Committee on these G.L.C. constituencies. There are, however, two particular points to which I should refer. The report recommends a reduction in the representation of Kensington and Chelsea from three to two. Before it made this recommendation, the Commission considered not only the 1965 electorate, but the 1968 electorate. Whether it was right to do so, or whether it should have had regard only to the 1965 figures, is not a matter on which it would be proper for me to comment now, since it is the subject of proceedings elsewhere.
But the fact that we are dealing with the Greater London recommendations by legislation means that Parliament is entitled to come to its own conclusions on what the representation of Kensington and Chelsea should be, by taking into consideration whatever facts seem appropriate. Much as I sympathise with the special problem of Kensington and Chelsea, there are other areas with special problems, too. I am sorry to say that the 1969 electorate of Kensington and Chelsea, at 139,653, shows a further decline. Therefore, it would be right, here as elsewhere, to stand by the recommendations of the Commission in the Greater London area.
Once constituency boundaries in Greater London have been settled by the Bill, it will fall to me to make an Order under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act, 1963, providing that each new constituency will be a single-member electoral area for G.L.C. elections, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 7(1)(b) of that Schedule. As I said, the Government's intention is that this should be done in good time for the G.L.C. elections next April, and Clause 2(5) paves the way for this.
As I said on an earlier occasion, the Conservative-controlled G.L.C. has been pressing strongly for the implementation of the recommendations for Greater London, so that the boundaries can be used for G.L.C. election purposes. In a letter to my Department on 13th May, the Clerk to the G.L.C. asked that a resolution of the council should be brought to my notice. It ran as follows:
… that the Home Secretary be asked to receive members of the Council in deputation on the Council's request for the early introduction of single-member constituencies for Greater London elections.
On 20th June, the day after our last debate, my Department wrote to the G.L.C. and pointed out that the Bill, which had been published that day, carried out their wishes. Yet, that very morning, Mr. Horace Cutler, the Conservative Leader of the G.L.C., was reported in the newspapers as saying:
This is a deliberate attack on the Tory G.L.C. because we have irritated and embarrassed the Government.
I do not know who he thinks he is fooling. What I have done is to carry out the exact recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, and the request which was put to me in relation to London. I can only assume that Mr. Cutler was so concerned to play the party game of the Opposition that, even though I am doing something which he wants me to do, he feels bound to attack it.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going to take the sins of Mr. Horace Cutler on his shoulders. He will have a very heavy burden.

Sir E. Bullus: Mr. Cutler is not the Leader of the Greater London Council


and the Greater London Council Tories require single-member constituencies on the existing boundaries.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not what they asked me. I agree that Mr. Cutler is not the Leader, but Deputy Leader. I apologise most sincerely to the Leader and the Deputy Leader.
I should refer briefly to Clause 2(4). The purpose of the first part is to ensure that there is power in future to alter the Greater London constituencies. The last part preserves the power of the Boundary Commission to submit interim reports in respect of particular constituencies. For example, if the wards of a London borough are altered, consequential adjustment to constituency boundaries could follow. It will be the fault of the Opposition if the views of the Conservatives on the Greater London Council are not carried out in good time.
The other main provision of the Bill is Clause 3, which provides for the Boundary Commission for England to submit, as soon as may be, a report containing recommendations for dividing each of the four pairs of adjacent constituencies with over 90,000 electors into three, and for dividing the remaining constituency, Cheadle, with over 100.000 electors, into two. The constituencies are named in Schedule 2 and the intention is that the recommendations of the Commission can be dealt with in time for the next General Election.
We have approached this with the aim of removing under-representation in the very largest constituencies. The changes proposed outside London are kept to a minimum while local government changes are in prospect. This was done before, in 1944—not this precise arrangement, but the idea of breaking up very large constituencies—and there is a good case for doing it again, although hon. Members might argue that the Bill does not go far enough down the scale. But the line must be drawn somewhere, and there will always be constituencies just below the line wherever it is drawn.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that there is at least one pair of constituencies in which the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations are not effective at all in the county areas, so there can be no

possible reason for carrying out the Boundary Commission's recommendations in respect of two constituencies instead of their recommendations for five or six?
Second, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Clause enjoins upon the Boundary Commission that it should make the constituencies of approximately equal electorates? Does this not mean that the Boundary Commission thereby is enjoined not to take into consideration the normal considerations, such as the local ties and future expansion of population?

Mr. Callaghan: I would reserve any comment on the first point, because it is a Committee point which I should like to consider. I wanted to say something about the second point and I will, perhaps, do so later. I agree that this is something on which we should give some guidance to the Commission. It has had no difficulty in carrying out its instructions and I do not think that it will have any on this—

Sir Knox Cunningham: rose—

Hon. Members: Not again.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—

Hon. Members: We are not.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The Home Secretary referred to only the largest constituencies being altered, but is he aware that I represent 127,000 electors, the size of six Ladywood constituencies? Will he remember this when he bears in mind my point about the Ulster constituencies?

Mr. Callaghan: The number of seats fixed for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is reached by special considerations. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will refresh his mind he will see that the number of Northern Ireland constituencies was fixed at 12. There are special considerations there and I do not hold out any prospect of the number being increased at the present time.
In carrying out the exercise of dividing the very large constituencies, there is a precedent, as I have said. The normal methods of the Boundary Commissions will apply. That is to say, they will publish provisional recommendations


Then they will consider representations by political organisations and others—any body of citizens, indeed—which may wish to make them. They will then test local opinion and, if necessary, publish revised recommendations before submitting their final recommendations. Thus, the machinery is there to be followed, as it has been before.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) said that there was the difficulty about the Commission being required to produce constituencies in each area with approximately equal electorates. This must be taken into account with the local government boundary criterion, which is of just as great importance—indeed, the Commissions have attached very great importance to it in the existing recommendations. Certainly, it would not be the intention to fetter the Commission any more tightly than they are now. If they felt that, in trying to give fairly equal representation, they would fulfil their duty by fixing one constituency, as I have said, at 43,000 and another at 75,000, and took the view that this was not going beyond their discretion, I would not feel that the same limit of tolerance would be beyond their discretion in trying to achieve the ideal of the approximately equal. That would be my understanding of the situation.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to only local government boundaries in that statement?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. We are trying to relieve the burden, about which representations have been made to us by others—not the hon. Gentleman—concerning the great difficulty of carrying a very large constituency. We are aware of the burden of personal representations to which this situation gives rise. I have had representations about a number of hon. Members with very large electorates who are having to carry a very substantial burden.
If I am asked why I did not get rid of Birmingham, Ladywood, I have an easier answer now than I would have done last week. It is no longer ours. It is worse to have under-representation, because of the burden of getting proper representation, than it is to have overrepresentation if it is intended that overrepresentation should go in due course anyway. But if one takes Ladywood

as an example, I think that the Opposition really are applying an arithmetical mechanism to it which is not justified in a party which believes in historical associations and continuity.
The constituency of Ladywood has existed for many years. The number of constituents is down substantially because of a slum clearance programme, but it has probably now reached the minimum. As soon as Birmingham City Council gives the word, the number of constituents will start to move up again because, I understand from the plans in existence, there will be substantial redevelopment of Ladywood over a period.
In this situation, the House is entitled to ask whether we should destroy a constituency for a matter of a few years and break the historical associations and continuity when it is to be rebuilt with a very high density of population over the next few years. If we are to have an operation at this moment, it is better to relieve hon. Members who are carrying loads through having large electorates than it is to try to get closer arithmetical approximations, especially as the Boundary Commissions themselves have failed to secure that approximation, for which I do not criticise them.

Mr. Keith Speed: Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman canno give any estimate of the constituencies whose electorates will be 100,000 or more by the end of the present Parliament? According to a Parliamentary Answer, he cannot give an estimate.

Mr. Callaghan: I looked at this matter, but it seemed to me that we should deal with the position as it now exists. That is the basis of breaking up these large constituencies at the moment. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise another point on a letter I received this morning. I hope to let him have figures during the course of the debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friends are getting impatient with me because they all have splendid speeches which they are aching to make.
The boundaries which would be fixed under these proposals are likely to be of limited duration until the Boundary Commissions carry out the next general


review, when the new local government boundaries have been settled. It is for that reason that the proposals in the Bill for the division of abnormally large constituencies are kept to a minimum.
That is the outline of the Bill that the Government bring before the House to deal with problems as they exist. It is based on the principle, hitherto accepted by both sides and certainly in the country, that frequent changes of constituency boundaries should be avoided. Instead of two major upheavals in the political map, the Government prefer to solve the matter in a more practical manner by having one upheaval when the local government boundaries are fixed.
I say only one word or so on the politics of this matter, because I have been interested to read the published calculations. Some of the writers and the professors who instruct and enlighten us on these matters have been able to calculate to a certainty that, as a result of this Measure, the Government will gain one seat and the Opposition will lose three, as against, so I am told by the same pundits, an expected gain to the Opposition of eight or 10 seats, which, multiplied by two, would mean 20 in terms of a majority.
When I look at the results of the 1964 and 1966 General Elections, in terms of the narrowness of the voting in certain constituencies, I can only marvel at the omniscience and certitude of these gentlemen. In 1964, a total of 40 seats were decided by majorities of less than 1,000. One seat in 1966 was decided on a majority of three. No doubt it has been written down as a very highly marginal Conservative seat. Also in 1966, there were 75 seats decided by majorities of less than 2,000. In 1964, as I have said, 40 seats were decided by majorities of less than 1,000 and 90 were decided by majorities of less than 2,000.
As the pundits seem to be basing themselves on the 1964 electorates, they are showing a degree of omniscience and certitude which I envy, but disbelieve. I do not believe these calculations about the political consequences. What is happening here is that we are doing a sensible and practical job in trying to ensure that the political map will represent the new local government boundaries in due

course, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which condones and sanctions the deliberate and flagrant breach by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland of their statutory duties under section 2(5) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, violates constitutional arrangements agreed by all parties, and continues a substantial number of constituencies with abnormally large and abnormally small electorates without regard to the statutory requirements relating to the approximation of individual constituencies to an electoral quota".
On my last day as a pupil at the Bar my Master seized me firmly by the arm and gave me this valuable piece of advice, "Above all, my dear boy, be dull". I have diligently been pursuing that advice ever since. On this occasion I have been outshone by the Secretary of State who, during the course of a 45-minute speech, failed to give the House a single reasonable argument in favour of the Bill.
I myself will be as dull as I can be in the circumstances, but I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension. We regard the Bill as a constitutional enormity. We think that the Government have been gerrymandering the constituencies. But if I were asked to give a single reason why we are convinced of it it is precisely the reason which the Secretary of State gave at the conclusion of his speech.
It is precisely the narrowness of majorities which convinces us that the right hon. Gentleman has been caught with his hand in the Parliamentary till. I would remind him that the calculations of the so-called pundits are based upon a known result in the absence of swing. Therefore, the pundits are not predicting the future. They are giving a notional result on the basis of known figures at the last election.
The first reason the Secretary of State gave for supporting the Bill was that the House rejected our Motion a fortnight ago. As our precise argument against the Bill is that the Government have been making an improper use of their parliamentary majority for gerrymandering purposes, that is only to add


insult to injury. It has just as much, and just as little, reason and justice behind it as the argument of a rather bigger boy seeking to justify to a selected group of cronies punching a rather smaller boy on the nose. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's first argument amount to.
The second point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was the question of his own legality. It is to that question that I wish now to devote my attention. The 1949 Act lays on the right hon. Gentleman—and, for the Scottish Boundary Commission, on his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland—a double duty. It is to lay before the House as soon as may be the reports of the Commissions and to lay with them the draft Orders in Council giving effect to those recommendations with or without modifications.
The right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary defence, which he described as not taking advantage of a technicality, was that these reports have been presented and not laid at all. In other words, to get out the part of his obligation which is to lay a draft Order in Council he claims to have broken the first part of the obligation by not laying the report at all.
If the right hon. Gentleman claims to have acted legally, let me issue this challenge to him. We heard from the Chancellor yesterday, when he was answering the Prime Minister's Questions, that the Attorney-General has been consulted in the matter. Let the Attorney- General publish his opinion to the House. After all, he is supposed to be the legal adviser to the House as well as the legal adviser to the Government. I would like to know whether the Attorney-General endorses the Secretary of State's view of the law. I do not wish to embarrass the right hon. and learned Gentleman now. No doubt he will give us the benefit of his advice when he has had time to consider the question.
If evidence is wanted that this is a breach of the law, all we need to know is that the Government are introducing a Bill, because if they could have done legally what they are seeking to do they would be laying an Order in Council and not a Bill. If the Secretary of State bought that there was the smallest degree of constitutional propriety about what he was doing, if he had had the

smallest respect for Parliament which laid this obligation upon him, and if he felt that the case which he was presenting was a genuine one, he would have come to Parliament, which imposed the obligation, and asked to be absolved from his duty, before he had broken it.
In our view, at any rate, it is a constitutional enormity for the two Secretaries of State who are the principal Officers of State responsible for the maintenance of law and order to come here after breaking the law and then ask for a Bill not to counteract their breach of the law, but to sanctify it.
The Secretary of State's third point was founded upon a quotation from Mr. Herbert Morrison in the 1944 debates. I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been served very badly by those who have been preparing his brief, because if Mr. Herbert Morrison had been using the words in the context in which the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to use them he would have been deliberately misleading the House of Commons. But he was not. This is where the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake.
The 1944 Act contains three different types of report—in Section 2, in Section 3, and in Section 4. The first was the sub-division of the swollen constituencies. For that, the Ministers had no option but to lay the report and draft Orders in Council embodying, with or without modifications, the report. The third was the continuing review by the Boundary Commissions then to be set up. There again, Ministers were not supreme; because, as the Secretary of State rightly said, the same obligation was laid upon them then as now.
The second—this is what Mr. Herbert Morrison was referring to—were the results of the initial review. There, the obligation of Ministers contained in Section 3 was not to embody the recommendations in a draft Order in Council, but simply to lay the report before Parliament and make their own recommendations by Bill. Mr. Herbert Morrison was far too good a Parliamentarian to mislead the House. The right hon. Gentleman, in seeking to lead the House to believe that Mr. Herbert Morrison is a witness in his support, was, in fact, unwittingly misleading the House most seriously in a vital particular.
As the Secretary of State continues to cling as to a lifebuoy to the—as I shall seek to show—wholly wrong argument about the sovereignty of Parliament flung out to him by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in the last debate, he ought to embody in his speeches the elementary principles of constitutional law. The sovereignty of Parliament is a statement about law, not a statement about constitutional propriety. It means, and it means only, that in Britain, unlike I think in any other civilised country on either side of the Iron Curtain, the judges cannot pronounce upon the constitutionality or legality of an Act of Parliament.
Under the doctrine to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, people were unjustly deprived of their lives by the horrible series of judicial murders in the 17th century done by Parliament in virtue of its sovereignty. Parliament has prolonged its life—unconstitutionally in the Septennial Act, constitutionally during the war. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were referring to what is a statement about British law as a guide to constitutional propriety, which it is not, I could wish that he could have remembered a little more about the authority of Parliament when he was truckling to the T.U.C. the other day. Or even when he and his colleagues—[Interruption.] I promised to be dull, Mr. Deputy Speaker—were putting the country in hock to the international bankers.
But now, instead of performing his statutory duty, he comes to the House with a Bill. What does the Bill propose? It proposes a certain treatment for the four Boundary Commissions. The Boundary Commissions, and each of them, were under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, and under the deputy chairmanship, each of them, of a distinguished High Court judge or the equivalent—Mr. Justice Thesiger, Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones, Lord Kilbrandon, and a Northern Irish judge whose name for the moment escapes me.
The Commissions, under the deputy chairmanship of these distinguished judicial figures, have been allowed to hold seventy public inquiries, to spend four years of their time and other people's time, and £100,000 or thereabouts of public money in preparing recommenda-

tions which the right hon. Gentleman, if his case was genuine, must have known for at least three of those four years were utterly a waste of time. They are now jettisoned completely subject to Clause 1(2) and (4) provisionally in the case of the other three Boundary Commissions and definitely in relation to the English Commission save so far as its report relates to London.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has been reading the pundits, it is a sorry business in this connection that he did not cite a rather important article in New Society which deals with this point. It states that the right hon. Gentleman's
… main ground was the imminence of local government upheavals following the Maud Report. Callaghan described the Maud Report as 'a new and important factor.' New it certainly is not: it has been known that the Maud commission was at work since shortly after the parliamentary boundary commissioners began their current review and nothing would have been simpler than to pass a short act postponing the review for a few years. at the time that the Royal Commission on Local Government was set up"—
and, as the author adds poignantly—
before it was known that Labour was going to suffer from the parliamentary boundary changes.
If there had been the smallest honour in the Home Secretary's proposals, that is what he must inevitably have done. If he chooses to dispute that in acting as he now proposes, he is guilty of a grotesque insult to the chairman and deputy chairmen of those Boundary Commissions. I invite the right hon. Gentleman once more to secure for publication the opinion of Lord Kilbrandon and Mr. Justice Thesiger about the way in which their Commissions have been treated. Even if he does not do so, he knows very well what they would say—

Mr. Ivor Richard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to interruptions on many former occasions.

Mr. Richard: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) really must


learn to contain himself: he has a good deal to contain.
I now propose to deal with the third of the main issues before us in considering the Bill, and that is the constitutional arrangements which were made in 1942 by an all-party agreement. Not the least disturbing of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments a fortnight ago was his reference, without apparent disapproval, to the pre-1942 status quo under which redistributions took place sometimes at intervals of 30 years. Perhaps that was not surprising, since under the present Bill—and significantly, as the right hon. Gentleman says, in 1984—the maximum period for which the Boundary Corn-missions may be prohibited from delivering another report is precisely 30 years from the last effective review.
Let me remind the House of what happened. It was precisely that situation which was cured by the legislation of 1944. The Coalition Government, to which the right hon. Gentleman chose to pay his own tribute, took advantage of the party truce to set up in 1942 a committee on electoral machinery. That committee reported, and in his Second Reading speech Mr. Herbert Morrison quoted what it said in a passage to which the right hon. Gentleman did not find it convenient to refer, on the necessity for creating, as part of the regular and normal machinery of democratic government, a regular review procedure by a Boundary Commission which was not merely impartial, but was seen to be impartial.
It is that arrangement which the Home Secretary now, for the first time, seeks to overthrow, because although much that took place under that Coalition Government with regard to the electoral machinery, both as to the initial review and as to Mr. Speaker's Conference to which it was related, has been the subject of bitter dispute in this House, the one thing which has hitherto never been disputed is that the review of the Boundary Commissioners should take place regularly as part of the normal and permanent machinery, and should be respected by both parties, neither of which is in a position to be trusted as judge in its own cause.

Mr. Callaghan: I read the 1944 debate this morning, and it struck me how the Act had failed to carry out the intentions

that were no doubt thought to be proper by both sides. It was supposed, as is stated in c. 1613, that it would lead to comparatively small changes at the regular reviews which were to take place at the intervals laid down and to keep constituency changes in step with changes in population. When the latest Boundary Commission report has to come up with over 400 changes, 322 of which are major changes, we can see how far that Act has failed in its purpose.

Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary only underlines my point, and I must tell him why. It is perfectly true that in 1949, and previously in 1944, the period was then to be between three years and seven years. It is true, also, that in 1958, again with agreement between the two parties, the period was enlarged to 10 to 15 years, but the immensity of the changes now proposed after four years of work by the Boundary Commissions shows how very unwise it is to let the thing to go even for as long as 15 years, now that population changes are more rapid in the light of Government policies and the changing pattern of industry.
What Clause 1 proposes is that unless there is a direction of the Commission by the Secretary of State, whom we trust no longer in this matter, we should go from between 25 years and 30 years from the last effective review. Thus the point he has just made, like the other point he also made so impetuously, seems to me to cut right across his argument.
If there had been the smallest piece of sincerity about this legislation, if the right hon. Gentleman, when he appointed the Commission on local government boundaries in 1966 had honestly believed that these other reports should not be implemented until the report of the local government Commission, which he must have known was to be fundamental, how easy it would have been to reactivate the party consultations before it was known to him, as the author of the New Society article kindly puts it, that the Labour Party would be likely to lose as a result of the review.
Now I come to the validity or otherwise of the excuse about the Redcliffe-Maud Commission. This seems to embody all the characteristics of recent Government statements. In the first place, it is not true; in the second place, it is


not relevant; and in the third place, the conclusions do not follow from the premises. It is not true because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself was aware although he tried to discount it, the assessment of the author, the impartial author, of the article to which I referred, is quite different from his own. It is that only seven of the proposed changes would, in fact, cut across the Redcliffe-Maud boundaries, even if they were implemented in toto.
The Parliamentary Boundary Commission, he says:
is proposing in only seven cases throughout the country to create constituencies crossing the Maud boundaries where existing constituencies do not do so (and Callaghan would implement one of these). In at least two of the new Maud areas (Northants and Norfolk) the internal parliamentary boundaries would probably be different if the boundary commissioners had been free from the restraint of observing existing county borough boundaries. But it would be fairly easy to isolate these cases and to implement some four-fifths of the recommendations that would probably not involve further upheavals.
That coincides with our assessment. Even if it had been true that the boundaries would be transgressed on the assumption that at some future date the Maud recommendations will be implemented in ninety-four cases as the right hon. Gentleman claims, how much more honourable it would have been for the right hon. Gentleman to have done what was necessary in an Order in Council complying with the requirements of the Act and modifying the recommendations of the Commissioners accordingly.
As a matter of fact, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it, both the English Commission and the Scottish Commission and, I think, the Welsh Commission, expressly referred to local government reorganisation which was taking place. They drew attention to their powers under Section 2(3) of the Act to make individual recommendations from time to time, but it is precisely that power among others which they are now to be prohibited from exercising in order to satisfy the passion for gerrymandering of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Secondly, of course, the excuse is irrelevant. That it is irrelevant to Scotland is manifest. That it is irrelevant to Northern Ireland and Wales is also

manifest, for the Redcliffe-Maud proposals do not refer to either. It is only relevant to England in this rather modest way. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes what I am saying, let him get Lord Redcliffe-Maud to state his opinion about it. I challenge him to do that. Let him get Lord Redcliffe-Maud's opinion, because by no stretch of the imagination are the Redcliffe-Maud proposals relevant in the light of the kind of time-scale which we are about to produce.
Here again, although I know hon. Members opposite do not like it, I put the impartial view of the author of the article in New Society. [Interruption.] The hon. Member should do his homework to use a phrase which hon. Members opposite are all too eager to use in reference to us. The author says:
It is true that the confusion between pre-1964 constituency boundaries and post-1964 local government boundaries presents a particular problem here but it is much less bad in Greater London (where the necessary changes slightly help Labour) than in the West Midlands county boroughs (where the necessary changes would slightly help the Tories). In fact, about half of the changes the Commissioners propose to Parliamentary boundaries are merely to bring them into line with local government boundary changes already made in the last eight years.
For this we are to postpone the regular and normal machinery of continuous review agreed in 1942 between the parties for another 10 or 15 years if the provisions of Clause 1 are carried out and this can be abridged only by the dictate of the Home Secretary and his machine-made majority which we are today indicting him for misusing.
I now bring to the attention of the House some of the defects of the proposals. The first is the time-scale. I have already pointed out that Clause 1 postpones the reviews for 10 or 15 further years unless the Home Secretary intervenes. Let us consider the situation about Redcliffe-Maud. I am not concerned about whether the Prime Minister was right or my right hon. Friend was right about 1974, but let us look at the calculation in detail. Neither party has made up its mind about even the fundamental proposals, or lines of proposal, in Redcliffe-Maud. No one, I believe, suggests for a moment that the proposals will be legislated before the next General Election. We do not know when that will be, but it need not be before May, 1971.
No one for an instant supposes that these changes once legislated can give rise to new local authorities working on the ground and exercising their functions for a year or two after legislation. It is only after that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the Commissioners' review will begin again. All we know is that the current review took four years and it would presumably take at least two years after that before the Commissioners' review was implemented and brought into being on the ground in the shape of new constituency associations.
It is obvious, whichever way we look at it, that we are being asked to perpetuate boundaries which are already archaic and have already reached the maximum length allowed by law of 15 years from the last review for about another three General Elections. It is the immense inconvenience of having a review which is inhibiting the right hon. Gentleman from allowing the Boundary Commissions to use their functions before another three General Elections or so have passed. Is it to be wondered that we for our part agree with The Times leader that the best course is to
implement the reports fully, even at the cost of later inconvenience?
One next looks at the anomalies to which the Government have given rise. There are first, as I pointed out last time, a very large number of over-sized constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to divide some, a select few outside Greater London. Well and good. He will create a new constituency of South-East Hertfordshire of 34,000 electors, with the electoral quota at 58,000 for England, but let Wokingham stay as it is, although it is a constituency of 99,377, and growing, and is next door to Windsor, with an electorate of over 70,000. Why is not the right hon. Gentleman doing something about that? The answer is that it would create a number of extra Conservative seats.
It is not insignificant that atr Wokingham the next largest constituency left in the country is the county constituency of Huyton, in the County of Lancashire, with an electorate of 95,746, which is still increasing. Nor is it insignificant that the author of The Times leader said that if Kirby were amalgamated with Ormskirk, which is precisely what the Boundary Commission proposed, the Prime Minister would be likely to lose his seat.

It is precisely this kind of gerrymandering which the Secretary of State has done without consulting the Boundary Commissions, in defiance of his legal duties, and without consulting the other parties.
A very large number of constituencies with electorates of over 80,000 are left unaltered as a result of this gerrymandering Bill. But smaller constituencies are also left unaltered. I can understand why the Secretary of State was a little coy about mentioning Ladywood What is Ladywood, whose historical connections the right hon. Gentleman mentioned with such moving compassion? Not only is it the smallest constituency in the country. It consists of four-fifths of one ward, half of a second, nine-tenths of a third, one-twentieth of a fourth, a couple of dozen electors from a fifth and two streets of demolished houses from a sixth, while the majority of people living in the Ladywood ward are not in the constituency. It is this historical body of local community feeling which the right hon. Gentleman, despite the disagreeable experience of a by-election, out of sheer love of tradition seeks to perpetuate.
I do not wish to say a great deal about London.

Mr. Callaghan: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is relying for his speech so extensively on the New Society article, will he quote the sentence which begins:
Yet it is unsound to charge Callaghan with failing in his statutory duty, as did Quintin Hogg last week"?

Mr. Hogg: I thought that we should get that. Again, the right hon. Gentleman has tripped up, because—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should like to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the words of the Statute. He has conceded in his speech that he has not complied with his statutory duty because he claims to have presented but not laid the reports, as the Statute required. He has not complied even with the spirit of the Act, because he has not laid draft Orders in Council and he has funked the opinion of the Attorney-General, to whom the House will pay immense attention if he tries to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later in the debate.
Let us take the constituencies which are divided by the Report. Take, for instance, Portsmouth, Langstone. This was a Government proposal which was carefully considered by the Boundary Commission, and it reported on it. It was perhaps a litle disingenuous of the Secretary of State not to tell us what the Boundary Commission found about Langstone and Huyton, which at that time had an electorate of only 87,000 instead of 95,000. The Boundary Commission said this about Langstone:
We considered that the existing Portsmouth, Langstone B.C. (94,859 electors) and the growing Gosport and Fareham B.C. (84,193 electors) could not be left unchanged. Havant and Waterloo U.D., if removed from the Portsmouth, Langstone B.C. made a seat of reasonable size … and we decided to recommend this. Portsmouth … made two rather large constituencies but the available information suggested that the decline in the borough's electorate might continue. A division into three constituencies would therefore only be possible if Gosport could be associated with part of Portsmouth in a new constituency. But the natural barrier of Portsmouth Harbour seemed to preclude this.
Yet that is precisely what the Secretary of State has done in his selection, despite the fact that he tried to tell the House, without referring to this, that he departed from the Boundary Commission only with very great reluctance when it had made positive and revelant proposals.
We know that this is a "fiddle". It is worse than the fiddle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in postponing the London borough elections. It is worse than the re-warding of Northampton. It is worse even than the rather conspicous fiddle in the 1948 Act when the Labour Party was the Government. But we know where we are. We are observing the death agony of the Labour Party. It has already abandoned its principles. It abandoned them sufficiently long ago as November, 1964, when it left the "go" out of "stop-go". It abandoned the makeshift policy, the only part which ever made sense, when it ran away from Mr. Victor Feather two weeks ago. It is now abandoning its honour. What shall it profit a party if it gains the whole world and loses its soul?

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. and learned

Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and I will try to cover most of the points which he has dealt with. Right at the start, however, it would be churlish for any of us not to say how grateful we are to him for informing us at the beginning that he was today to be in one of his more cool and restrained moods. If he had not informed us we might not have been able to notice it.
Some of us have the greatest admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman on some occasions. We remember his speeches on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill: we remember one of the finest speeches which I have ever heard in this House. When I listened to him today I could all the more appreciate the advice that he was given at the beginning of his legal career. I think that he would have been wise to have followed it. As some of us know, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suffers from a kind of political schizophrenia. Indeed, compared with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would say that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde could be described as a beautifully integrated personality.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, was in his more boisterous mood. I approach the matter in a more objective spirit. I can declare my lack of interest in the subject in the sense that not a single inch of the holy ground of the Ebbw Vale constituency is to be touched either by the Boundary Commission or by the Government in their proposals. Therefore, I approach the matter perhaps in a cooler mood than the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to muster.
I listened to the debate the other day with great care. I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to some of his right hon. Friends, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Today, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone calls these proposals a constitutional enormity. He says, in effect, as he said the other day, that the Government and, by implication, the House of Commons have only one duty: the duty to accept the proposals of the Boundary Commission.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was even more specific in


that respect. He said in the debate on 19th June:
Many years ago Parliament in its wisdom put this sensitive matter of the redistribution of parliamentary seats into the hands of an independent commission.
The deduction or the implication from that is that both the Minister and Parliament are required to accept the decisions of the independent Commission. I quote these matters to make sure that I deal with the substantial argument that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone made. It is an important argument.
On 19th June, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East went even further than his other legal friends and said that the issue was:
the sanctity of the rule of law.… There is no Ministerial discretion here. It is a clear mandatory duty, and, subject only to modifications, imposes on the Home Secretary an instant duty to give effect to the totality of the Boundary Commission's recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1969; Vol. 785, c. 751 and 760.]
That is the case of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I am glad to see from their nodding their heads that I have not misquoted them in any sense. That is the basis of their case. That is the main charge which affects the question of honour and all the words that appeared in the peroration today of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They are all concerned with whether the Minister, in the first place, and the House of Commons, in the second place, must accept the decisions of the Boundary Commission.
If that case were to fall, the whole of the rest of the case of right hon. and hon. Members opposite would fall. That, therefore, is what we should examine. It is a very important question, because I quite agree that there is a good case, if we could possibly devise a system, for trying to remove questions of arguments about parliamentary boundaries and the condition of elections from the partisan fight. I acknowledge that if that could be achieved it would be a very desirable end. Therefore, it is an important argument.
I do not believe that anybody can say that I have misrepresented or tried to wrench a quotation from its context. I have taken the substance of the case of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for

Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) may be able to bring forward legal arguments which have not occurred to his right hon. and learned Friends in all the debates that we have had, and we will listen to him with fascination. I am taking the main argument which has been presented by the whole weight of legal authority on the other side of the House.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone had some controversy about the late Mr. Herbert Morrison, to whom great tributes were paid. Herbert Morrison was never one of my particular favourites, but as far as I can recall he was never one of hon. Members' opposite either. If he were to come back from the grave today and listen to the measure that is placed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite upon every comma and syllable he might pronounce, he would be deeply surprised on the matter of boundaries in London. At least, I am glad to have that posthumous tribute to the political integrity of my old friend Herbert Morrison.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member forgets that we lived and made it up together in the House of Lords.

Mr. Foot: Let me come to some other legal authorities. I hope that the House remembers exactly the case that is being made: that the Minister and the House of Commons must accept the decisions of the Boundary Commission. Let me turn to some of the debates in 1954, when we had a bit more experience of the matter, perhaps, than did those who discussed it in 1944. Indeed, it is not part of my business to defend what was done in 1944. I think that a lot of the legislation was extremely slipshod. It had to be tidied up by subsequent legislation and partly by debate in this House in which some of us participated.
Take, for example, the debates in 1954 following the last major redistribution of seats proposed by the Boundary Commission. What was the view of the legal authorities on that occasion? There was a constitutional authority in this House. He would be accepted by hon. Members opposite. We were a bit dubious about him at the time, but for this purpose I am quite content to acknowledge him. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) should not laugh too soon. He will be laughing at one of his most honoured friends, Sir


Kenneth Pickthorn. If hon. Members opposite took the whole range of Conservative constitutional authority from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone back to Judge Jeffreys, if they like, they would hardly find a more eminent authority than he.
What did Sir Kenneth Pickthorn say? "Who was he", some of the youngsters among us may ask. It is a most insulting thing for them to say. He said on 15th December, 1954:
… but I am sure that this House ought not to deprive itself of the right to decide that in Case A, Case B or Case C the Commission has made mistakes.
He went on to say that if it were said that Parliament could not pick and choose, that would be the thin end of the wedge.
I cannot quite muster the sombre, legal eloquence that he brought to bear on these matters, but I will do my best. He added:
It seems to me that if, in order to try to avoid the thin end of the wedge, it is being said that we must swallow the whole lot en bloc without any discrimination at all, then, in fact, this House is depriving itself not only of its own power but of its own duty in the matter.
He went on to say:
Not only have we that general duty, which is necessarily involved, but we also have the specific duty of having these things put before us and of deciding which we shall and which we shall not have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1809–10.]
Whether or not the Home Secretary has made the decision to pass his own judgment on these matters, certainly we in the House of Commons could have insisted on our right to do so, just as the Conservative Party quite rightly insisted on doing so in 1954.
If Sir Kenneth Pickthorn's authority is not accepted, if it may be thought that he was a man who lived in too elevated a legal sphere, what about—[Interruption.] He was a constitutional authority, with his Cambridge University connection. It does not add much to the tribute, but that was what he was. Take Mr. Ralph Assheton. He did not have much legal knowledge, either, but he was at the Conservative Central Office quite a long time, and so he knew about these matters. He condemned the findings of the Commission in 1954 root and branch. He said:

I take the liberty tonight of attacking the Commission, a thing which, normally, I would not do, because it cannot answer back.… I suggest that the work of the Boundary Commission in England stands condemned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2119.]
He tore the Commission into shreds.
It may be said that that is not sufficient authority—not Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, nor Mr. Ralph Assheton, or many others I could quote. I could keep the House all evening quoting those who opposed the views of the Commission on that occasion and asserted the right of the House of Commons to do so.

Mr. Carlisle: With all respect to him, the hon. Member is missing the whole point. Those examples he gave were of hon. Members objecting to Orders laid before the House. If the hon. Gentleman would care to read the 1949 Act he would find that Section 3(5) specifically provides for Parliament to object to Orders. The point is that the Home Secretary has a duty to lay Orders before the House.

Mr. Foot: Before the hon. Gentleman says I have missed the point he had better hear it. He had better study the matter a bit more carefully before he tries to lay down the law so quickly. I have quoted two authorities—

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member has quoted authorities in the wrong context.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member should listen a bit. Hon. Members opposite may dismiss the claims which were made by those eminent Members of their party, but they did not do so at that time. They may do so now 15 years later. They did not do so at that time.
However, I had already guarded against the point which they are trying to make they say there is some distinction between the obligations of the Home Secretary in the matter and the obligations or the rights of Members of the House of Commons, and I thought it was possible that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen might jump on that distinction and assert such a point, and, naturally, in considering the matter, I took into account, as it was only natural that I should, the views expressed by the Home Secretary of the time. That is quite fair, is it not?

Mr. Hogg: Lloyd George.

Mr. Foot: Now hon. Gentlemen opposite are objecting to that and saying "No" to that and what he had to say. The Home Secretary at the time, Mr. Lloyd George, did not say it was the business of the House of Commons—of himself or the House of Commons—to accept the views of the Commission. Not at all. Indeed, he had correspondence with Members of the House before the Orders were placed and before the matter was brought to the House at all, and what he said in reply to the correspondents was that he would listen to representations which were made by Members about individual constituencies or about other matters generally. I would quote a sentence from him. He said in a letter which I quoted on 15th December, 1954:
I can promise that I will keep an open mind, and that I shall bear in mind what you and the hon. Member have said to me. I will pay careful attention to what you or he or anyone else says in the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1862]
What was the point of his paying careful attention to what was said in debate and saying he would keep an open mind if, according to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East, there is no discretion in the matter?
That is the case of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. They may be able to make a superior case now. They can say that this Commission was set up to remove this matter, which is a sensitive one, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames says, entirely from the arena of debate, but that was not the view of the Home Secretary in a Conservative Administration at that time. So I say that whatever may be other arguments about this Bill, it is utterly impertinent of anyone to suggest that the Home Secretary or the House of Commons is behaving improperly in saying, "We do not accept the position that we are subordinate to an independent commission". I say that in taking that view themselves and in holding to that view they are expressing exactly the same view which we had expressed in 1954.
Those who have changed, from what motives I would hesitate to guess, are those on that side of the House, and it is hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have the legal explaining to do.

I dare say they will try to explain this away later, but what they said in the debate a week ago is plainly repudiated not only by back benchers but by the Home Secretary of that former time.
Now, we have to be very careful, I warn the House, of the legal arguments which are put by right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, when they differ from one another. A week or so ago in the House some hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen on that side differed from one another and greatly added to the interest of this place, but when they are joined together, and when those delicate arguments and accents are joined together in one legal conglomeration in some forensic hotpot, some Central Office stew, as on this occasion, we have to be very careful not merely about their legal advice but about the legal validity of the advice which they tender. I would hesitate to accept that legal advice, particularly after the evidence we have that it is in conflict with the view expressed following the report of the Commission on that occasion.

Mr. Hogg: The Attorney-General?

Mr. Foot: The Attorney-General? I have no doubt he will be able to give his views as well as anyone. I am speaking for myself in this matter. I do not speak for the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary. He can look after himself. He seemed quite able to do it in the last few weeks. I am not speaking for him or the Attorney-General on these matters. I am putting my own view, which may be rather different from theirs, but I think it is based on evidence of the facts.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone, in order to embroider his charge—although, as I say, his main charge has now fallen—says this is changing the rules in the middle of the game. I wonder what particular time in the Parliamentary timetable he would think not the middle of the game. Suppose that the Government, at the beginning of this Parliament, or in 1964, had said—and I would have welcomed it, because I have been critical of the operations of these independent commissions—that because of the unsatisfactory nature of the Boundary Commission they proposed as one of their first measures to introduce a Bill to change it.


Would hon. and right hon. Members opposite have given in 1964 or 1966, I wonder, an enthusiastic reception to such a proposal? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone would have been even more boisterous than he has been this afternoon, and he would have said, "Fancy the Government, as the first measure they introduce in the House of Commons, having a measure to change the Boundary Commission". There is no "suitable" time, when it suits the Opposition, necessarily, for what the Government have done to alter the constitution, to alter these rules.
What I am saying is that the House of Commons has a perfect right to alter these rules, and hon. and right hon Gentlemen opposite are degrading the House of Commons when they say we have not the right to make up our own minds on these matters and come to our own conclusions.
They are not merely degrading the House of Commons but they are taking an even more dangerous constitutional step, a constitutional enormity, in my opinion, when some of them say that if they do not succeed in this House they will try to raise the matter elsewhere. The Daily Telegraph incites hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that the House of Lords might be brought in to assist in this matter, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) talks in the country about this. I think he should come along here when he has such important constitutional suggestions to make. Certainly we think that he knows more about London boundaries than about the defence of the nation. Therefore, we would be very happy to have his advice, but we were not told whether his advice to the Shadow Cabinet has been approved by the right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. Perhaps a member of the Shadow Cabinet may tell us what are the party's intentions about the House of Lords.
It would be an extremely serious matter if the Conservative Party proposed to use its majority in the House of Lords to try to fix or interfere with the fixing of the constituency boundaries of the House of Commons—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman must wait. If he wishes to demolish the arguments

which I have put, and which were put by Mr. Gwilym Lloyd George and others, he will surely have an opportunity later in the day.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is all right for the Government at this time, when they no longer have the confidence of the nation, to use their majority to fix the boundaries, and at the same time for him to complain about the House of Lords?

Mr. Foot: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that if he had any respect for the institution of which he is a Member, he should insist upon the right of this House of Commons to decide this matter, and if they had any respect for the principles of democracy, he and his hon. Friends would deny to the House of Lords any right whatsoever. But there are other resources. If it were suggested that there was to be any incitement for another place to act in this matter, it would be the duty of the Government to move immediately to the introduction of a short, sharp Bill stripping them of their powers, and if that were to be proposed it would raise a constitutional crisis of the first magnitude. It would be perfectly within the power of the Government, even within the period before the next General Election, to arrange a sufficient number of sessions to ensure that that was carried through. I therefore hope that we will hear no more of those proposals, because they could be of a very serious character.
When I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman being so passionate today on this subject, I was amazed that he was able to work up such a heat. But, of course, the Conservative Party has benefited over many years from the boundary situation. Indeed, the House of Commons in 1954, which accepted the last major boundary report which caused so much turmoil, was a House of Commons in which the Conservative Party held the largest number of seats, although it had fewer votes in the country than the Labour Party. To be equal with the Tories the Labour Party at that time had to make up half a million votes before it started. The Conservative Party used that majority in 1954 to push through boundary proposals which were officially opposed by the Labour Party. Let us not be told that these were united,


agreed measures. They were opposed by the Labour Party, and by many hon. Members in their own right, on the grounds which I have stated. Therefore, it is a bit cool for the Conservative Party to tell us now that if we depart at all from what the Boundary Commission has laid down we are imposing—

Mr. J. T. Price: Since my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is regaling us with historical reminiscence, he and the House might be interested to know that in 1954 I had the honour of leading into the Opposition Lobby five Conservative Members for Manchester who were in violent conflict with the Government of the day. This confirms the point made by my hon. Friend. The Government at that time were so pressed to produce a majority that they were using the 12 Ulster Members of Parliament as a balancing factor to force legislation through the House. If anyone wants an example of gerrymandering it can be found in the use of those Ulster Members.

Mr. Foot: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. Many bitter charges can be made against the Government, charges which I am sure hon. Gentlemen later in the debate will wish to withdraw, but no one on either side has made the charge against this Government or against a previous Administration that they have conducted themselves in the manner in which the Ulster Government conduct themselves in Ulster. Nobody has made that accusation, and I hone that such scandalous charges will not be bandied round the House.
The House is perfectly aware, if it studies the facts, that the facts are entirely against the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have suggested to the House that we have no power to do what we are doing, or that we are acting wrongly or unconstitutionally. It is right in this House of Commons to decide how best we can co-ordinate the proper conduct of Parliamentary elections and the proper conduct of local boundaries. I do not personally want to see the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud measures in the form in which they are presented, but the House has the right to decide about those matters just as it has the right to decide on Parliamentary boundaries. What the Conservative Opposition have done in this debate is

to degrade the House of Commons and, if they are beaten in their arguments here, they want to transfer the argument to the place where they have a permanent majority. They might even win the argument there, but here. I can assure them, they have lost it.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for telling us in advance that he would be coolly objective; otherwise, if I may adopt his own phrase, we might not have noticed it. As I was at one time a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman's speeches, I could not help reflecting during his speech how much less effective he seemed to be when supporting the Government than when opposing them. No doubt the easy explanation is lack of practice. I feel that the hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the arguments which he was trying to controvert. This is very unusual for him, even in the rather unusual circumstances in which he has seen fit to place himself.
The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to me and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), but no one so far as I know has denied that Parliament has the ultimate authority to decide these matters. The whole point of the speeches that some of us made the other day is that Parliament is singularly ill-advised to indulge in a large-scale exercise of this type when it has available the uncontroversially prepared and impartially put together recommendations of an independent Boundary Commission. Of course Parliament has the power. No one disputes that, although I stress that it is a power in Parliament and not in one House of it. It is a question of the wisdom of the use of that power which is in issue here.
For that reason all his quotations from speeches of my right hon. Friends and of former hon. Members of the House were completely irrelevant. None of the speeches which he quoted—and I know his ability in research—suggested that the Home Secretary should not discharge his statutory duty of laying with the report an Order either implementing the Boundary Commission's recommendations or


implementing them with modifications. The quotations from the then Home Secretary in 1954, indicate a willingness to consider matters on their merits, followed after the Home Secretary had discharged his duty. When such matters are before the House, it lies with the House, after the Home Secretary has discharged his duty, to consider them. Nobody is so foolish as to dispute that if the House in its wisdom thinks fit it can reject them. This is the point the hon. Gentleman failed to grasp.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was right when he suggested that it lies with both Houses of Parliament, if in their wisdom they think fit, to alter the whole system and to introduce amending legislation to do so. But what the hon. Gentleman, who is a good Parliamentarian, will agree is so particularly outrageous is that this is now being done when the Home Secretary knows that he is already under a statutory duty to lay these Orders, and not at a time when he anticipates there is a need for amending legislation. And, secondly, that basic changes in the constituency situation are being made wholly unilaterally by the Government of the day without prior consultation with the other parties affected. This is the point that blows out of the window the Home Secretary's pretence that he is introducing this change because of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals and the administrative inconvenience that would follow from operating the law as it now is in the prospect of changes to be made under Redcliffe-Maud.
If that were a real and sincere reason, would not the Home Secretary before announcing his decision and before introducing legislation have entered into consultations both with my right hon. Friends and with the officers of the Liberal Party? It is the tradition of the House that electoral changes are made only after there has at least been an attempt to get some measure of party agreement. Will the Home Secretary say whether a single approach was made, either to my right hon. Friend's or to the Liberal Party? It is my impression that until my right hon. Friend's Motion dragged out of the Home Secretary an account of his intentions on 19th June not a word had been spoken to either of the parties concerned. If that is true—I am ready to accept a denial from the Home Secretary if he can

give it—does it not knock the bottom out of the argument that his is a sensible administrative arrangement made in view of the changes that are to take place.
One knows that quite small electoral matters are dealt with, or one tries to deal with them, through the Speaker's Conference or otherwise by way of interparty discussion. Such matters as the exact wording on the ballot paper and the length of time polls are open are discussed informally between those affected. Yet here the Home Secretary comes along—and as I take it that he now admits without even an attempt at interparty consultation—with broad and basic changes in the whole layout of constituencies in the country. Can he be surprised if not only those of us on these benches, but practically every commentator in the Press outside believes that he is doing it for party political motives.
In the debate on 19th June the right hon. Gentleman said that I had accused him of rigging the matter, and he asked me to demonstrate how this was so. That was an easy trick, since the right hon. Gentleman knew that, like the rest of us, I had only just seen the Boundary Commission Reports. I now respond to his challenge and say that this is being done deliberately to rig constituency boundaries in the interests of his party.
I will demonstrate the matter in this way. First of all, we have not had the inter-party consultation which would have been an inevitable part of a genuine administrative reform, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Secondly, it is known that outside London the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are in general unfavourable to the Labour Party and that inside London they are on balance favourable. On the latter point I rely on the very informed article which recently appeared in The Times. And we know that that by curious coincidence they are being applied fully in London and hardly at all outside.
Then we have the matter of selectivity among the large constituencies for breaking up. Why was not Huyton, with its 95,000-odd electors, subjected to this process? Was it because the Prime Minister's position would have been undermined? Was it an example of the dog-like loyalty to his leader which the Home Secretary has shown so conspicuously in recent weeks? Or is it perhaps


an argument in the right hon. Gentleman's favour that the political survival of the Prime Minister may not, after all, be in the interests of the Labour Party?
When one has this combined picture—no consultation, application of the Report where in general it suits the Labour Party, non-application where it does not, and the deliberate selection of particular constituencies by arbitrary Ministerial decision—of course the Home Secretary is suspect. One knows that he has thrown overboard the whole prolonged processes of the Boundary Commission with all the judicial work involved, the hearing of evidence, and careful discussion—over four years work just thrown out without discussion or consultation. Is he therefore surprised that he is just a little suspect in this matter when it is abundantly clear in the minds of every commentator that, on balance, the position is better for the Labour Party under the Bill than it would be under the Commission's recommendations? Surely the case has been demonstrated.
The Home Secretary's manner today was quite extraordinary. He made the suggestion that he was avoiding being in breach of the law in not laying Orders by an additional breach of his statutory duty by not formally laying the Report. I pay the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General a compliment by saying that I am sure that point was not made on the advice of the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary came to the Box in breach of his statutory duty, and he knows it.
He came, nonetheless, with that curious air of injured innocence that he affects. In the debate on 19th June he referred to me as combining the manner of a bishop with the vocabulary of a Billingsgate porter. I make no complaint about that because were it true it would be an indication that I was well equipped to enjoy life both in this world and the next. But I thought the Home Secretary's manner of injured innocence when his hand is found in the till recalled the man caught cheating at cards who persisted all through in saying that the Almighty put the ace up his sleeve.
Of course the Bill is completely intended to be in the interests of the Labour Party. The explanatory memorandum at the beginning should read:
The main purpose of the Bill is to secure the political interests of the Labour Party by

continuing the representation of small constituencies which are likely to return Labour Members while providing for the under-representation of larger ones far more likely to return their opponents".
That is a fair re-writing of the Memorandum in the Bill.
The Home Secretary is a good enough Parliamentarian to know in his heart that by this Bill he is doing a very bad thing to Parliamentary democracy. Indeed, he is doing a bad thing for the Government. The Government have a bad record in this respect. Those of us in London remember well the fiddle over the London Borough elections. In the end it did the Government no more good than this move will do. But it enabled them in certain boroughs to hold on to power for a stolen year. This Government came to power by giving promises which they were intelligent enough to realise could not be carried out. They are now trying to retain that power by manipulation, in their own interests, of the processes of Parliamentary democracy, and for that reason they will be shown the peculiar degree of contempt which any civilised society reserves for the cheat.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: This will now be the third occasion within the last two years that I have had the pleasure, I am not sure whether it is a privilege, of following the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in a debate on elections boundaries. The right hon. Member referred to the debate that took place on the postponement of the London local government elections. Then the same sort of speeches were made, predictable speeches in a predictable debate. We had it again on the Motion about 10 days ago and for a third time this afternoon. Let me now say something that I have said on those previous occasions, that there is no one quite so good at wrapping up an electoral motive in a constitutional principle as the right hon. Gentleman.
One of the foundations of his argument against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government was that in some way or another they are cheating. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that if the Government thought that there was a genuine administrative argument they should have


approached the Opposition some years ago. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) is not present, because I know that he recalls the argument which took place about three years ago, when he and other hon. Members opposite were saying precisely the same things as have been said today about the proposal to postpone the Boundary Commission's report until after the Redcliffe-Maud Commission had reported and that had been considered. That argument was rejected by the other side, before either of the documents had been published and before the House had been given the opportunity of considering them.
Moreover, I seem to remember that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wrote a letter to The Times about 18 months ago in which he complained about the Governments action in postponing the date of the local government elections. He said that it raised grave doubts whether the Government were considering postponing the implementation of the Boundary Commission's report until after the Redcliffe-Maud Commission had reported, and that that postponement would not be acceptable to hon. Members on his side of the House. If it was not the right hon. Gentleman, I trust that he will rise and say so. I see that apparently the letter was penned by him.
In the debate on the postponement of the London borough elections, commenting on the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) I said that what we had listened to was "vintage Hoggery", and having invented the concept I ought to explain it. It can be defined as constitutional thunderings of a very high order, usually delivered at full volume and invariably designed to conceal an electoral motive.
This debate is pure "Hoggery" on the part of the Opposition, from start to finish. They know, as well as any independent observer does, that there is no question of a breach of electoral law, that there is no breach of any constitutional principle or of constitutional propriety. May I pray in aid the article which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone relied on so extensively for his facts and figures? It was an article

written by Michael Steed in the New Society, 26th June.
This psephological and constitutional authority, relied on so much by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in a paragraph which he very conveniently forgot to read, said:
Yet it is unsound to charge Callaghan with failing in his statutory duty, as did Quintin Hogg last week. The law governing parliamentary boundaries is so badly drafted that it is very far from clear that the Government is breaking any law. It is much more to the point, as John Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, that Callaghan is in breach of an inter-party agreement under which periodical boundary reviews are set up.
If that is the gravity of the charge being made against the Government, namely, that in some way the Government are in breach of an inter-party agreement entered into in 1944 between two different sets of parties and different sets of people, it is time that we dragged that concept out in the open and examined it.
What is this agreement supposed to be about? As I understand, it is supposed to lay upon the Government the duty of consulting with the Opposition in the event of there being great electoral changes. Does anyone really believe that if this proposal had been put to the Opposition two years ago it would have received their approval? I do not believe it. Indeed, such evidence as there is is that it would not.
The opposition in this debate has been about one thing only—votes. It is not about constitution, nor about a breach of electoral law, nor about constitutional impropriety. The Opposition's concern is over votes, because they consider that if the whole of the Commission's report were implemented they might gain some electoral advantage.
It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone tends to operate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, on two levels. At one time he can be wise and statesmanlike, moderate, rational and sensible, extremely helpful to anyone trying to take an intelligent interest in an argument. On the other hand, there is his other level, when he behaves with all the prudence and restraint of an irascible yahoo. The moderation then goes out of the window, the judgment is forgotten, and, what is even


more important, the realities of the argument get submerged.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and myself appeared on a radio programme the other day. In that programme I put a specific question to him and I would like to put it to the Opposition tonight, because it should be answered. Do they—yea or nay—believe that there is a good administrative argument for postponing the implementation of the Boundary Commission's report until after the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have been considered? [Hon. Members: "No."] Then they must be some of very few people in the country who hold that opinion.

Mr. George Younger: Nonsense.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman should consult some of the town clerks in the area he represents. I have consulted some in the London area and most of those I talked to told me that the possibility of three major reforms of boundaries—one Parliamentary, as a result of the Boundary Commission recommendations, then a major upheaval over Redcliffe-Maud and then yet another Boundary Commission, was not a prospect that they can view with equanimity.
Perhaps hon. Gentlemen do not believe that there would have to be two major reforms. May I pray in aid the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone? In the debate on 19th June I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question:
On the assumption … that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, or something like them, are likely to be put into effect … does it not mean another Boundary Commission sitting as soon as the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have been put into effect so as to readjust the new Parliamentary boundaries to the Redcliffe-Maud ones?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
Yes, it certainly does mean that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1969; Vol. 785. c. 736.]
Out of the mouth of the principal spokesman for the Opposition we have, therefore, the concession that if Redcliffe-Maud means a major upheaval, which it does, then following upon that upheaval there will have to be another major review of Parliamentary boun-

daries. That means that the whole exercise would have to be gone through again. Another Boundary Commission would have to sit and report back to the House of Commons and another report would have to be considered. Frankly, it would be administrative nonsense to go through that sort of exercise twice within a period of five to seven years.
I wish that the Opposition could for once raise their eyes a little above the level of votes—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—which, unfortunately, is where they have been solidly fixed. In his more sober and reflective moments even the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone might consider that the overwhelming balance of convenience is in favour of the measures which the Government are introducing by the Bill and are overwhelmingly against the propositions advocated this afternoon by the Opposition.

6.22 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said that these debates take a predictable form, with predictable speeches. Whether that was meant as criticism I do not know. If it means consistency, that is not necessarily a Parliamentary vice. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman overdid his pursuit of consistency, because he appeared to be retailing to the House excerpts from speeches which he had previously made. However, they were no less enjoyable for that. I pay him this compliment. I do not think that he will be minded to think it an exaggeration that, in identifying a point at issue and in identifying a point of law, he is markedly superior to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), to whose points I shall come later.
I am not concerned with the detailed provisions of the highly selective boundary adjustments provided for in the Bill, but with the general question of its constitutional propriety, or impropriety. It is not that the contents of the Bill may not be some guide to constitutional propriety or otherwise. I have not made an elaborate study of party advantage following on the provisions of the Bill, but I know what the effect will be in the area of which I have detailed knowledge.
Hertfordshire, East has over 85,000 electors. To the east, the west and the north there are other large constituencies. But there is this difference. Hertfordshire, East and, to the west, Hertford, represented by the noble Lord, are Conservative constituencies. Those to the east and to the north are Labour constituencies at present. By some no doubt politically convenient statutory coincidence, the Home Secretary is bringing relief to the under-representation of the constituencies to the east and to the north, with their Labour representation, and denying it to the constituencies with Conservative representation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and I are not asking for any change. We are not among those making representations to the Home Secretary. We like our constituents and we think that they like us. But, by a deliberate act of policy, and clearly contrary to the statutory rules laid down, the Bill will create electoral disparities of about 20,000 in that area in a way which clearly points to party advantage as a powerful motivation for adjustment.
This is the Bill, with its partisan provisions and suspect origins, by which the Home Secretary seeks to meet the charge levelled against him of breach of duty and breaking the law. Apart from the Bill, there is no defence to what is a clear breach of statutory duty.
On 19th June the right hon. Gentleman had had the Report of the Boundary Commission for two months, so he was already in breach of his duty to lay a draft Order in Council to give effect to its recommendations. He now bases his defence on Clause 1, on the omnipotence of Parliament to put a cloak, not of respectability, because that would not be possible, over his actions, but a cloak of immunity to his breach of the law.

Mr. Michael Foot: indicated dissent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale shakes his head. I repeat what I said before. The Home Secretary, apart from the contents of the Bill, is in clear breach of his statutory duty.

Mr. Michael Foot: indicated dissent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman again shakes his head. Though he made a very enjoyable speech, it is not his opinion for which we ask.
We ask for the opinion of the Attorney-General. It is the Parliamentary equivalent, I suppose, of asking for bread and being given a stone. It would have been better had it been the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). His legal opinion would have had some value. But we have got off on the wrong foot. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, to adapt an old phrase, is not a pillar of the law; he is only a column in the Evening Standard.

Mr. Michael Foot: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman pinches a third joke from somebody, would he mind facing the question whether he still agrees with the view that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to accept the totality of the Boundary Commission's recommendations, even though all the authorities that I quoted before took the contrary legal view from that which he is putting forward?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It has been explained to the hon. Gentleman. I will make another acknowledged quotation. We can give the hon. Gentleman an explanation, but we cannot give him an understanding. We are dealing with two different matters. The Home Secretary is in breach of his statutory duty—that is clear—but that in no way fetters the sovereignty or the right of Parliament to legislate. That is the question to which I am about to come.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale laid a charge against me of impugning or derogating from the sovereignty of Parliament. I am at least as unlikely to do that as he. I am just as devoted to the House of Commons as the hon. Gentleman. I have been a Member of this House longer than the hon. Gentleman, without the necessity of having to seek the representation of another constituency. So I am also attached to the omnipotence of Parliament.
It is right that, in law, the sovereignty of Parliament is unfettered. In the old phrase, Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman or a woman a man—although it is fair to say that the marvels of modern surgery have made


even that limit on the omnicompetence of Parliament less relevant than it formerly was.
We have first to understand what is meant by the sovereignty of Parliament. Is it Parliament as a whole, in the constitutional concept of the sovereignty of Parliament, or is it a single Chamber? Although the sovereignty of Parliament is legally unfettered, are not there constitutional limits which should exercise a restraining influence over it? On the first question, the sovereignty of Parliament means what it says, and not what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale thinks it means, namely, a single-Chamber Government. He is at least 130 years out of date.
Since he is showing this new-found and welcome enthusiasm for the law, let him study the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, the leading constitutional case on Parliamentary privilege, In that case the courts declined to recognise as legislation the Resolution of one House and, in the words of Professor Wade, this constituted
an acceptance that the law of Parliament requires that all legislation should go through the proper stages of enactment.
That principle is still unchanged.
It is true that by the combined effect of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 Bills can become law one year after their initial Second Reading in the House of Commons, if passed in two successive sessions and twice rejected in the other place. But until those processes are complete there is no legislation and no expression of the sovereignty of Parliament—and during that period the Home Secretary continues, at any rate technically and in theory, in breach of his statutory duty.
The hon. Member made various threats against the other place. I shall not make threats or give advice. How they view their duty is a matter for them. But they have principles to guide them. They have the principles formulated on the high authority of Dicey. First, he says that on legislation the House of Lords must ultimately give way. Nobody would dissent from that. But the more difficult question, as Dicey recognised, is at what stage they should give way. Dicey's answer is:
The Upper House must give way whenever it is clearly proved that the will of the House of Commons represents the deliberate

will of the Nation. The nature of the test differs under different circumstances.
What are the tests to apply in this case? There is the test of whether there is a mandate. There is nothing in the election Manifesto of the Labour Party promising a gerrymandering with election boundaries. The next relevant test is the stage which has been reached in the lifetime of a Parliament. Early in the lifetime of a Parliament the House of Commons must be interpreted as reflecting the will of the nation—but this Parliament is 60 per cent. spent. It has a dwindling hold on the electorate, as can be seen by the by-elections and the polls.
The final relevant test is the nature of the issue. If this were an economic or a financial issue it would be difficult for the other place to challenge the House of Commons. But this is a question of constitutional propriety—one on which the House of Lords would have very much more status to intervene.
The decision is one for the House of Lords. But let them not be intimidated by the bombinating threats of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. If, having applied the right principles—as formulated by Dicey and recognised by constitutional authorities—they should conclude that it is their duty to reject, I would say that their decision could be powerfully defended, both in constitutional principle and at the bar of public opinion.

Mr. Eric Moonman: Surely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is that the Conservatives would whip up a campaign to ensure that the Bill was defeated in another place if it was passed here. That is rather different, and makes the right hon. and learned Member's argument rather dicey, to say the least.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) should leave his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to make his own jokes and his own puns. On the point that he makes, he will accept that there is nothing in my language which could be described as whipping up a campaign. I have formulated the principles and suggested that the other place should consider them. I have said that it is a matter for them.
The principle of sovereignty of Parliament does not mean, and should not be said to mean, carte blanche for a temporary majority in the House of Commons. It might be a theoretical possibility in law but it would be open to grave objection if it were not tempered by a sense of constitutional propriety. I quote Professor Wade again. He says:
It must not be forgotten that the inevitable consequence of the supremacy of Parliament in the legislative field is that there can be no check upon the unscrupulous use of power by a Government which finds itself in command of a majority in the House of Commons.
The exercise of parliamentary sovereignty is bounded by what Dicey calls the limitations and conventions of the consitution. It is these constitutional conventions of which the Government are clearly in breach. They may, by the Bill, hope to escape from legal liability, but they cannot escape from constitutional impropriety. They will have used or, rather, abused the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty to justify retrospectively a breach of duty and to subordinate the observance of the law to party advantage.
Let nobody underestimate the importance and gravity of constitutional impropriety such as this. It is only because British Parliaments over the generations have been trusted to observe the constitutional conventions that it has not been found necessary by this country, as it has by others, to entrench them in a written constitution. Of late we have heard powerful and persuasive voices arguing that the time has now arrived to entrench the constitutional safeguards in a written constitution.
Lord Shawcross, I believe, has had something to say on this matter. His opinion is entitled to great respect, not only for his great abilities and experience, but also because he had the dubious advantage, in former days, of sitting in at the council table of the conspirators—if I may so call them. He has an insight into the hearts and minds—assuming that the former organs exist—of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In former times he has played Brutus to their Casca and Cassius.
History and the experience of other countries show that gerrymandering for electoral advantage is often accom-

panied or followed by atempts at the prolongation or even the perpetuation of Parliament to make a single-Chamber assembly in which the Government have a majority. Happily, Bills, to extend the duration of Parliament are excluded from the limiting provisions of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Nevertheless, it would be a very confident and optimistic—not to say generous—person who made any ready assumption that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not at least considering the possibilities of taking some such action.
It may be the reason for their idiosyncratic interpretation of the sovereignty of Parliament. After all, this Bill, grave as it is, may be in the nature of a dummy run—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) may not have thought so, because he is a simple soul, if I may say so with all the affection due to an old friend and former constituent.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I would rather be a simple soul than too clever by four and a half.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member is in no danger of having to make any election on these matters. I accept, of course, that no such dark and sinister thoughts have clouded the purity of his political mind, but he cannot speak for all his right hon. and hon. Friends.
They may be tempted to play for higher stakes and consider, if they are allowed to get away with this constitutional impropriety, the graver impropriety of trying to prolong the life of this Parliament, to create a twentieth-century equivalent of the Rump Parliament, with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale cast, no doubt, in the rôle of "Praise God" Barebones.
In fact, constitutionally, even the Bill as it is constitutes a grave indictment of the Government. They have long been convicted of economic incompetence and now they are convicted also of constitutional impropriety. They have added to the incompetence of a Napoleon III the duplicity and double dealing characteristic of Bismarck. Instead of this bad and partisan Bill, we should have now an Order in Council giving effect to the fair and impartial recommendations of the Boundary Commission, in order to give a fair election, and resulting from it, a good and upright Government.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Terence Boston: Like the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), I was brought up on Dicey. A great deal has been said about the sovereignty of Parliament and I should like to say something about it in a moment. When the Home Secretary was due to make his announcement in the recent debate, I thought that we should have to spend some time convincing him of the need to take both these sets of boundary changes together. I was, therefore, very pleased when he proposed to do precisely that.
Nearly three months ago, in a Question to the Prime Minister, I put this particular suggestion, that there is a strong argument for dealing with these two sets of changes, under the Boundary Commission and the Redcliffe-Maud Reports, together. I am heartened to find that the representations of a back bencher have produced such a swift response in so short a time.
I should declare a non-interest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I have no personal axe to grind for my constituency about the Boundary Commission's Report. The Report of the Commission for England affects my constituency not at all, so I stand neither to gain nor to lose from anything in it. Unlike that of my hon. Friend, however, my constituency is affected by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend has made out an overwhelming case for avoiding two sets of costly and time-consuming upheavals. There is an undoubted case, as I and others put forward a few months ago, for taking both together.
Inevitably, boundary changes mean upheaval for many people, not only electors but local authorities and their officers. There are few things which arouse more feeling than the inevitable upsets of boundary changes. As my right hon. Friend said, communities are frequently torn asunder. If these two sets of proposals were taken separately, no sooner would people have started to identify themselves with one community than they would have the same thing again within a very short time.

Mr. Speed: I am following the hon. Member's argument closely. In that case, would he agree that there should have been Parliamentary redistribution in 1965, when extensive changes were made to local authorities boundaries in the West Midlands, for example, which was within the 10-to-15-year time scale of the 1949 Act?

Mr. Boston: I do not remember hearing that argument put forward with great strength in 1965, and I do not think that it arises now.
Boundary changes are inevitably time-consuming. Local authority officials and others are involved in this work, and no one would claim that local authorities are under-worked. I certainly would not claim it for the local authorities in my constituency, which have plenty to do as it is, without having to cope with two upheavals.
Then there is the cost. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite constantly talk of the need to check public expenditure, and some of those arguments carry weight. Yet they now suggest this duplication and even greater public expenditure would unnecessarily be involved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "Oh", but they are taking a surprisingly cavalier attitude now, compared with the statements about public expenditure which we are so used to hearing from them.
There is an overwhelming case for dealing with the bulk of parliamentary changes and the reform of local government following Redcliffe-Maud. My own County of Kent provides a good example for taking both changes together. Under the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, two of the 61 unitary authorities would be in Kent, which would be divided into East and West Kent. The boundary of these two authorities would go slap through the middle of my constituency of Faversham.
I do not intend to take up time about my views on that, although I have some fairly strong ones. But the position of the proposed boundary is of wider concern than purely local interest because, under the Boundary Commission's proposals, East Kent would have one additional constituency. The present Isle of Thanet constituency would disappear and


two new ones would take its place—Thanet, East and Thanet, West.
Under the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, my constituency would straddle the boundary of the two suggested unitary authorities for Kent—East Kent and West Kent—so that this would clearly throw completely into the melting pot once again the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies in East and West Kent, and we would get precisely the ripple effect which my right hon. Friend was forecasting from an adjustment of this kind because it would undoubtedly affect other constituencies around the rest of the country—unless it were to be suggested that Parliamentary boundaries ought to straddle the boundaries of unitary authorities, and I do not think that anyone would suggest that. I do not think that it would be argued in the House that we should abandon the principle of Parliamentary constituencies following local authority boundaries as far as possible.
I mention this example for one other reason, to give an illustration based on the electorate in the Isle of Thanet constituency and in the two proposed constituencies of Thanet, East and Thanet, West. The 1968 electorate of the present constituency was 84,274. The proposed Thanet, East constituency, on 1968 figures, would have an electorate of 43,571 while Thanet, West would have 40,703. I do not think that, on the one hand, anyone could argue that 84,000 for a present day constituency has reached emergency proportions in the size of electorates, or, on the other, that one could argue that 43,000 and 40,000 are really of such a size that the change should be put into effect as a matter of urgency. This is just one example. As my right hon. Friend said, others could be given throughout the country, bearing in mind the fact that 94 constituencies would be affected in one way or another.
The question of the sovereignty of Parliament has been raised. There is no doubt that Parliament is supreme and has the undoubted right to pass whatever legislation it wishes. One of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was that of the Septennial Act. 1716. The important thing about that Act was

that it showed above all that the sovereignty of Parliament is unchallenged and unchallengeable. It is a supreme example showing that Parliament can decide and has the right to decide for itself what legislation it wishes passed.
It has not been the only occasion on which Parliament has passed legislation on the length of a Parliament because, before that, there was the Act which it amended—the Triennial Act, 1694. Later, there was the Parliament Act, 1911, bringing in the five-year Parliaments which we now have. One of the advantages of our unwritten constitution as against a written one is that of flexibility as opposed to the disadvantages of rigidity [Laughter.] I am surprised at the partial attitude of hon. Members opposite, because they choose the passages from Dicey which they prefer to have, yet there is nothing clearer from Dicey—on which I refreshed my mind before the debate by going through the lengthy part on the sovereignty of Parliament—than that Parliament is supreme in deciding what legislation it should pass; but I shall not weary the House by making my own extensive quotations from the famous ninth edition of Dicey. There is thus the advantage with an unwritten constitution of flexibility.
Parliament sometimes falls into disrepute when it is unable or unwilling to react quickly to new and changing circumstances. One reason why Parliament is criticised sometimes outside is that it fails to use its powers to deal with new and modern conditions, and there can hardly be a better illustration of the need for Parliament to show its ability to react quickly to new circumstances than the need to combine action on Parliamentary boundaries with the reform of local government.
This is not, after all, a situation which is likely to arise very often. We should be failing in our duty if we did not try to deal with this new situation in the way most likely to benefit the nation. My right hon. Friend has proposed measures for dealing with the special problem of the big constituency. I am sure that he is right to take the bulk of the Parliamentary boundary changes with the proposals arising from Redcliffe-Maud and I hope that the Bill will become law.

6.57 p.m.

Dr. Michael Winstanley: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) has made an interesting and temperate speech, but I cannot join in his acquiescence in what I can only describe as the universal pastime of "Waiting for Maud". As far back as I can remember in my political life in this House, we have seen a terrible paralysis creeping over everything every time someone mentions Maud—" You cannot do this or that because of Maud". I believe that this we can do despite Maud.
It is only a matter of weeks since I had an opportunity of speaking on the subject and since on that occasion I took 11 minutes under the Ten-Minute Rule, I will try to be shorter this time. I then drew attention to the anomalies arising from the existence of very large and very small constituencies. I suggested a possible remedy if the Government were to delay in implementing the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. They have delayed, or at least they propose to delay. I acknowledge that they have met my personal case in that they have at least brought forward proposals for dividing the very large constituency of Cheadle, so what I asked for has in a sense been met.
It may be that the proposals could be regarded as favourable to my party. I do not know. I do not particularly want to know. But it has been suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) may lose under these proposals a Tory village in Orpington to someone else, and I am glad. It is also suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) may, although I am sure he would face any electorate with equanimity, prefer to fight his seat as it is rather than as it would have been. Therefore, I acknowledge that the proposals which the Government are making may be electorally favourable to my party.
I hope that it will be accepted, given that fact, that we oppose the proposals because we believe they are wrong. I do not think that I have any right to sit here and say, "I'm all right, Jim". We must look at things rather differently. In the previous controversial discussions about the postponement of the London local government elections we supported

the Government. We did so because we thought that they were right. The Government were then glad to accept our support. On this occasion, we shall oppose the Government because we think they are wrong, and I hope that they will equally accept that we are doing so in good faith. I believe that what the Government intend to do is wrong in principle, misguided from their own point of view, and, in the long-term, damaging to the House. I am sure that we on this bench would be wrong not to say so.
On 14th May I drew attention to three reasons why I thought it was desirable for the House to aim at broadly equal Parliamentary constituencies: first, to share the load amongst members of the House as equitably as possible; secondly, to provide, so far as possible, roughly equal access to a Member of Parliament by constituents; and, thirdly, the more important matter of the fundamental principle of, not only one man, one vote, but one vote, one value.
The Home Secretary appeared to underline one particular reason, namely, the question of the load carried by Members with very large constituencies. I say again that Members representing those large constituencies have made no complaint of it. They have not said that they are not capable of representing their constituencies. The Home Secretary kept talking about these under-represented constituencies. As he also said that he did not accept this argument of one vote, one value, it can only be assumed that he was suggesting that in some way, on a sort of personal basis, the individual Members, because of the largeness of their constituencies, were not able adequately to represent their constituencies.
They are so able. They would all claim to be. The hon. Members for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), Epping (Mr. Newens), Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), and Meriden (Mr. Speed), and the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who joined me in my efforts to do something about the large constituencies, did so in the interests of their constituents, for those two second reasons and not the first—not because of the load on the Member, but because of the need to give individual constituents an equal opportunity of direct approach to the Member and on the general question of representation.
The question of equal opportunity for constituents to approach a Member is crucial. During the short time I have been in the House I have learned—indeed, I knew it before—that my opportunities as a back bench Member of influencing major aspects of Government policy are somewhat limited, to say the least. This is a view shared by all back bench Members. I have also found that my opportunities, as indeed, those of all hon. Members, to sort out administrative muddles on behalf of my constituents are much greater than I had even dared to hope. A successful result, in terms of getting some improvement in a constituent's circumstances, is obtained in about one-third of all cases taken up.
In view of the enormous satisfaction that that brings, and recognising that this is a valuable function performed by back benchers, surely we must ensure that constituents have a roughly equal chance of getting such a service. This was the second and most important reason. This was the reason behind the support I received from hon. Members on both sides about my efforts to do something about large constituencies.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Even under the proposals of the Boundary Commission—London is a case in point—there is a gap of 20,000 between the largest and the smallest which will be there in any event. There will not be the equality which the hon. Gentleman is aiming for.

Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful for that intervention.
The Under-Secretary seems to share the distorted logic adduced by the Home Secretary, who said that the Government could not accept the argument of one man, one vote, and, therefore, of one vote, one value, because it would mean, even under these proposals, a variation in constituencies from 45,000 to 75,000. No one has suggested that there can be complete arithmetical equality. However, there is a vast difference between the inequality which would arise with constituencies varying between 45,000 and 75,000 and the inequality which will arise with constituencies varying between 130,000, as one is likely to be, and 17,000 or 18,000. Even though it cannot be evened out in

an exactly mathematical way, let us go some way towards it; let us remove the disparity so far as is reasonably possible.
If we accept that as far as reasonably possible Parliamentary constituencies should be roughly equal—I think that the whole House accepts this, even though the Home Secretary, for reasons which may be known to him, does not wholly accept it at this time—the argument today is about how we are to achieve this equality. One simple procedure which could be adopted is the card vote. Unfortunately, that must be discarded. To have a card vote as between Members would introduce degrees of inequality before which even the most ardent Marxist would have to submit.
For example, there would be great difficulties in terms of our Standing Orders. If we had to have six Members, as we do, to demand a debate on Third Reading, would it be six Members, or would it be only three—the hon. Members for Billericay and for Epping and myself? It might be that Members with more votes than others would never be allowed home on a Friday, but would be kept here to move the Closure. So this solution, though attractive—it has been seriously canvassed; card votes are respectable in some quarters—clearly must be rejected.
I would have preferred to have seen a reformed electoral system as a whole. I think that a periodic convulsive attack upon constituencies, which is necessary under the present system, has disadvantages, many of which have been highlighted today. Many of the difficulties could be avoided with a reformed electoral system. For example, there could be multi-Member constituencies for one city. Let us take one which has been mentioned so much today, Birmingham. If a number of Members were returned for a multi-Member constituency of that kind, the problem would be simpler. As the city grew, it would be given an additional Member. If it became smaller it would lose a Member. There is the problem of Manchester. The constituency of Manchester, Exchange has almost disappeared, but sooner or later it will reappear. As there is further building and development in the area, the constituency will come back again.
In this periodic onslaught, which we in the House accept, there are difficulties,


because changes take place to and fro. They are not constant or steady. I would have preferred to have seen a reformed kind of electoral system. The present Conservative emphasis on the need for electoral fair play gives me some encouragement, as indeed did a speech made some time ago by the then Government Chief Whip, now the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said this is October, 1965:
The Government takes the view that the time has arrived when we must examine in depth methods of electing Members of Parliament other than the present straight majority method. The present system obviously does not give a fair deal to important minorities like the Liberal Party.
It may be that at that time there were reasons why the Government found it necessary to think about our difficulties. The fact that they do not think about our difficulties now does not mean that the difficulties have disappeared. The difficulties are still there. I welcome any support I can get from anywhere for a reformed electoral system, but it is clear that whatever hopes I may have had will not be fulfilled at the moment.
That being so, we must look for another method. We have the present system, and since we accept the need for some method, all we can do is to make the present system work. Arguments whether or not the Government have a legal statutory duty to bring about these changes are rather sterile. The real argument is whether or not change is advisable, and we must agree that it is advisable.
It is essential in the interests of democracy and of both Houses of Parliament that three things should be kept utterly separate from Government: the Press, broadcasting and the arrangements surrounding elections. As far as possible, we should keep the arrangements surrounding elections separate from Government, and if we have adopted a system of giving the making of decisions and recommendations to some kind of independent body we ought to accept that body's recommendations even if to do so is not always convenient.
I accept the legal argument that Parliament must be free to act, but the real point is: should it act? We think that Parliament should not act in this proposed manner. With this kind of system, which is perhaps not the right system, we always have these party accusations of

gerrymandering. It has sometimes proved that either the accusations were ill-founded or the gerrymanderers were not very good at the job. There have always been these arguments, and I suggest that to avoid them we should always adhere to the recommendations, in which case accusations of gerrymandering will in the fullness of time disappear.
What do the Government give as special reasons? Their first reason is the Maud proposals. How does that stand up to argument. We have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and quotations from an article by Mr. Michael Steed in New Society. We have heard the various mathematical analyses of where the balance of advantage or disadvantage lies. But we all know that whatever Maud will do it will not do it very soon.
Whoever is in charge—and whether the present Government or the Tories are in charge it is well known that they are not speedy in making fundamental changes—it will take a long time for the Maud recommendations to be implemented. It cannot wait until then. The Meriden constituency. which is not mentioned in the Bill, will have an elecorate of 180,000 or 190,000 by the time the election after the next takes place. We have had all these prognostications by the Home Secretary about the Ladywood Division of Birmingham. He says that it is very small now, but that it will grow again. If it is right to look into the future in respect of the small constituencies it is equally right to look into the future for the large ones, and not speak merely of those which are large here and now.
The simply thing is to accept the recommendations as they are. In some ways it may be inconvenient to do so. There may have to be other changes in four, five, six or even seven years, but I am not as resistant to change as hon. Members opposite appear to be. If we are to have further changes, so be it, but do not let us be prevented from making necessary changes now by the prospect of having to make further necessary changes later.
We acknowledge that some of the things which the Government recommend are necessary and we would not wish, for obvious reasons, to place any impediment in the way of their being


brought about. But we also feel that the Government have a duty to this House and to the voting public to carry out the recommendations as they are. In that way they will strengthen the authority of this place, and not weaken it, as the present proposals will.

7.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I am delighted by the enthusiasm which my appearance at the Box seems to be creating, but I intervene only to deal with accusations that what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done in relation to his duties under the 1949 Act has been in breach of those duties. In my view, that accusation is unfounded.
Section 2(5) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949 provides that
As soon as may be"—
and I emphasise those words—
after a Boundary Commission have submitted a report under this Act, he shall lay the report before Parliament together … with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report.
For entirely extraneous reasons which have been fully explained by my right hon. Friend, namely, the prospect of local government reorganisation in the various parts of the United Kingdom, the Government have decided that Parliament should be asked to pass legislation to enable the alteration of parliamentary constituencies to be suspended. Accordingly, Clause 1 of the Bill provides that no action is to be taken under Section 2 of the 1949 Act in consequence of the reports submitted by the Boundary Commissions in the course of this year.
It is true that the reports of the Boundary Commissions have been laid before Parliament but, as my right hon. Friend has said, they have not been laid before Parliament in pursuance of Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act. They have been laid before Parliament as ordinary Command Papers so that the House will be in a position to judge whether the reasons for which the Bill proposes to suspend the large and radical changes proposed in the reports are or are not well founded. They have merely the quality of a White Paper.
In my view, the crucial question on the matter about which I have been asked to express an opinion is whether the Home Secretary can be said to have failed to comply with his duties under the Act as soon as may be. The reports of the Boundary Commissions, which were only comparatively recently submitted, are complicated and lengthy documents. In using the words
As soon as may be …
Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act contemplates that the Secretary of State will require an interval in which to consider whether the changes proposed in the reports should be given effect to with or without modifications. If the Secretary of State had been acting under the Section it is a matter of speculation as to the time in future at which this period would have elapsed.
The critical words are
As soon as may be …
The Act does not use the word "forthwith". The words are not "as soon as possible". In my submission, the words
As soon as may be …
convey something much less proximate in point of time than do the words "as soon as possible".
The responsibility placed upon the Home Secretary in the consideration of these reports is a heavy one. He has not only to consider whether the changes should be given effect to with or without modifications, but, of course, it would fall to him to have the responsibility for the drafting of the necessary Orders. If, accordingly, he had proceeded under the provisions of Section 2 of the 1949 Act, it is a matter of speculation whether he would have done so now or might not complete that operation for some time perhaps even before the end of the Recess.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

The Attorney-General: I will give way in a moment.
What the Bill accordingly does is to propose how this undoubtedly difficult problem should be resolved. The Bill passes to the House the decision on this matter. It is a decision fundamentally affecting the composition of the House and it is right that that decision should be taken in this place.

Mr. Hogg: I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving way in accordance with his undertaking and before he has actually sat down?

The Attorney-General: I am willing to adopt a sedentary position in compliance with that undertaking.

Mr. Hogg: The report has, in fact, been laid before Parliament. Therefore, it clearly was possible to lay it in the other form at the time when it was actually laid. According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is also the case that the Home Secretary has completed his consideration of the reports, however complicated they may he. I must ask the Attorney-General by what possible contortion of reasoning he can say that the Home Secretary is not in breach of the duty laid upon him by the Act in failing to lay the report in accordance with the Section.

The Attorney-General: The Section places on the Home Secretary the duty
as soon as may be
to lay the report together with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to the Orders. For the reasons I have explained to the House, the Government have decided not to lay the draft of the Order in Council, but to deal with the matter as they have done in this Bill, but they have thought it right to place before the House as a White Paper the Reports of the Boundary Commissions so that the House may judge the propriety and constitutional correctness of what the Government have done.
There is no breach of statutory duty. There has been here a proper exercise of constitutional power by the Home Secretary. What he has done is not in breach of duty.

7.23 p.m.

Captain Henry Kerby: Despite the intervention by the Attorney-General, I still regard the Bill as a thoroughly improper Measure. Under this Bill my constituency of Arundel and Shoreham in West Sussex, which was formed in the 1948 redistribution, becomes one half of one of those four pairs of adjoining constituencies quite arbitrarily singled out by the Secretary of State to be turned into three.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary a number of questions on behalf of my

constituents, who are both bewildered and worried by his action. We want to know, first, why he has joined Arundel and Shoreham to the Horsham division to our north rather than to the Chichester division to our west, an area where a new Arundel constituency was to have been formed under the sensible proposals of the Boundary Commission. I am asked by my constituents why these carefully worked out Boundary Commission recommendations have been unilaterally rejected by the Home Secretary why Arundel and Horsham rather than Arundel and Chichester?
Secondly, is it possible, as persistent local rumour has it, that the Secretary of State has chosen to shot-gun marry me to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) rather than to my equally hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) in order to prepare the ground, pave the way, set the hoard, as it were, for carving out a new inland mid-Sussex constituency somewhere in or around the Crawley area in what is at present the Horsham constituency? It looks as if the Commission may be driven into this as the only possible solution. In this event, how could the three constituencies, my hon. Friend's, the new one which is to be carved out, and mine, possibly conform to the approximately equal electorates which the Home Secretary himself calls for in Clause 3(1)(b)? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the hon. and gallant Member to address the House against a multiplicity of dialogues.

Captain Kerby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The geography of our area alone makes this change virtually impossible. I ask the Home Secretary to look again at the question of electoral parity in our area with what I take from his opening speech he is doing in the Greater London area. In my constituency we have long awaited redistribution. We know that it is necessary. Ours is a very large area geographically, and my electorate is rising steadily from 67,000 in 1954 to close on 96,000 today, with a further 6,500 coming on to the new register next year.
The original independent Boundary Commission proposals for Arundel and Shoreham were to split it roughly into


two and to create two new seats out of the present one, one in the west at Arundel taking in part of the present Chichester division with an electorate of 55,023, and the other at Shoreham in the east with an electorate of 55,660. This was an admirable solution which met with very general local approval and support. It took account of our very special geographical and local community interests in West Sussex, for our area is already naturally bisected by the barrier of the South Downs, a "hogs back" as it were running from east to west throughout its entire length. That was a reference to a natural barrier, not to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
In our local judgment the original Boundary Commission proposals for Arundel and Shoreham were excellent and should have been implemented in full. My constituents wish to know why this has not been done. We object to this unilateral attempt to conjure into being what must almost surely become a new mid-Sussex constituency in one form or another. Any such solution with a new Crawley seat in what at present is my hon. Friend's constituency would perforce leave my own already ultra over-populated coastal belt—some 15 miles long by two or three miles deep—penned in between the South Downs and the sea virtually intact and unrelieved. By joining us forcibly to Horsham, we cannot see how the Home Secretary can possibly expect the Commissioners fairly or even sensibly to resolve the problems of my constituency—I cannot speak for my hon. Friend—either electorally or geographically in what we regard as this new, unnecessary, expensive, time-consuming confrontation which he has forced upon my constituents.
For these reasons, I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby). I understand that he has not spoken in the Chamber for some time. I cannot understand why he is so modest. Obviously he can take care of himself. His was one of the very few speeches from the benches opposite which I have been able to understand.

Captain Kerby: Perhaps it is because I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has completely pre-empted my next comment. I was about to say that part of the confusion arises from the number of lawyers who have taken part in the debate. Part of it arises from the manner in which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) opened the debate for the Opposition. His was a very curious speech, even for him. Most of us who have listened to him and have some respect for him always know when he is about to make a bad speech. He sits hunched on the Front Bench as if he is about to explode. When he explodes he is always incomprehensible. We had one of those speeches this afternoon, and understandably so because he had a bad case.
There is no doubt that when the Opposition argue in constitutional terms they always over-ice the cake. We have not had a debate about a political judgment as to whether it is better to wait for the Maud Commission to decide final Parliamentary boundaries. We have had a debate about whether the Government intend to abolish Parliament. That is the logic of what right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been saying. It is an extraordinary argument.
I return to the central issue of the debate, which is whether the Home Secretary is correct in arguing that it is wiser to wait for 1974 or 1975, whatever the date may be, for the final outcome of the Royal Commission on Local Government. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who spoke for the Liberal Party and made an interesting speech, exaggerated when he referred to the constituency of Meriden. He argued that if we wait the electorate of the constituency of Meriden will rise to 180,000. This kind of exaggeration only confuses the House.

Mr. Speed: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. A large number of hon. Members are waiting to speak. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not waste the time of the House.

Mr. Speed: If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker,


I shall prove the figures to the satisfaction, I hope, not only of the Front Bench but of the hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Alan Lee Williams).

Mr. Williams: I shall listen with great interest, because I believe that the hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty in proving the case.
I shall not argue that there is not a very strong case for Parliamentary redistribution outside London where there are very large constituencies. I represent a very large constituency of 110,000. I recognise the difficulties involved in a constituency of this size. It is far better for the Home Secretary to have taken the decision which he has taken to go ahead with the redistribution of seats in London which are not affected, or are only marginally affected, by the Commission's proposals. I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend on that. In my constituency, which is affected only in the sense that parts of it are subtracted and nothing is added, the other two areas will be grateful for the opportunity of having a much more manageable size for their electorate. This is strongly supported by all political parties locally. Certainly the Conservatives in my constituency warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision.
A political judgment has been made which I consider to be right. It does not strengthen the dignity of the House if hon. Members, led by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, exaggerate their case and bring the dignity of the House into disrepute.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby), I begin by declaring an interest. My constituency is one of those singled out for this limited and arbitrary redistribution.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. May I draw attention to the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that even if a Member has not made a speech for 14 years it is customary for him to wait to hear the next speaker. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to make speeches and then walk out. It is not the normal custom.

The Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will observe the custom of the House.

Mr. Braine: Neither I nor my constituents can make any complaint about the fact that Essex, South-East is to be redistributed. We were due for this under the Boundary Commission's proposals which have now been set aside. I do not know whether we are unique in this respect, but my constituency has already been redistributed three times since 1945. This will make the fourth redistribution—an eloquent reflection of the dramatic way in which the population of Essex has increased and will continue to increase. But that does not make what is proposed in the Bill right.
I was completely unconvinced by the Attorney-General. His argument was legalistic and that was all it was. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not convinced himself. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), in a most interesting speech, said, "There is no question that Parliament has the right to act, that is, to set aside the recommendations of any outside body." But, as he said, is it right to act?
I do not propose to speak at length, or to say much about the Government's decision in this matter. As The Times put it very clearly on 20th June, it is "the shabby compromise that had been forecast." Suffice it for me to say that what the Government are doing here is to perpetuate for a further minimum period of five to seven years a situation which has obtained for a good many years past, where some hon. Members, almost all of whom are on the benches opposite, represent only a quarter or one-fifth of the number of electors, as a good many others, mainly but not wholly on this side of the House. This is not wholly true of the County of Essex, in which the two largest constituencies are represented by Labour Members. But the fact is that in England alone there are three constituencies in which the electorate has fallen below 30,000, while 47 others have electorates of over 80,000.
It is true that under the Bill the Home Secretary is dealing with the most glaring examples of swollen electorates, but it is only fortuitous that Essex, South-East, with its 95,000 electors, an increase of


47,000 since 1955, is affected because it happens to be next door to the constituency of Billericay, the largest in the country, with its 113,000 electors—had this not been the case, I have no doubt that we would have been left out—while the Cheadle constituency, with only 5,000 more electors than my constituency, will become two constituencies of 50,000 each. As it is, our next-door neighbours—Chelmsford, with its 82,000 electors, and Thurrock, with 77,000—are left unaffected.
My point is that the Bill takes no account of the huge, almost unprecedented increase in population which Essex as a whole has sustained and will, in the nature of things, continue to sustain in the years ahead, while at the same time shamefully keeping in being constituencies with small and dwindling electorates.
For example, the Exchange Division of Manchester has come down from 55,000 electors in 1955 to about 18,000 today. The next-door constituency of Cheetham comes down from 55,000 in 1955 to 30,000 today. The Boundary Commission proposed to join those two constituencies together. Had they been joined, even then the total electorate would have been only 48,000. How is it possible to justify the retention of small and dwindling constituencies of that kind, which have been dying on their feet for the last 10 or 15 years?
The sheer inequity of this becomes all the greater when one bears in mind that the enfranchisement of the 18-year old voters will add, I think I am right in saying, at the next General Election 8 per cent. more to the electorate. In absolute terms, therefore, the disparity between the abnormally large constituencies which will remain after the Bill becomes law and the small constituencies which will remain will become even greater.
I cannot see how hon. Members opposite, who declare themselves passionately attached to democratic practices, and, indeed, sincerely believe in democratic government, and who insist upon the sacred principle of one man, one vote in far distant lands, can bring themselves deliberately to perpetuate this unjust and unfair state of affairs. That they do so passes all understanding.
The party opposite may get their Bill. They may retain a few seats which they otherwise might have lost. In matters of this kind, however, memories are long. It is not surprising that a certain word has been mentioned several times in this debate and in the leader columns of the newspapers.
There was an ambitious Governor Gerry, of Massachusetts, who sought to redistribute the electoral districts of his State in a way which his opponents certainly thought would favour his party. The part which was affected, oddly enough, was called Essex County. It was observed that one of the more absurdly redesigned districts was shaped like a salamander, and a local wit promptly renamed it Gerrymander. The moral of the story, however, is that Governor Gerry was thrown out by the electorate and, although subsequently he became Vice-President of the United States, he never became its President.
I have made my protest about the Bill. But since my constituency is involved there is one further point which I should make. It was made, in a way, by the hon. Member for Cheadle and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham. Clause 3(1) requires that out of each of the four named pairs of constituencies three new constituencies shall be formed with approximately equal electorates. In my view, that is unnecessarily rigid, and from what the Home Secretary said this afternoon I sensed that he thinks so, too. I hope that I am right about this.
That provision gives the Boundary Commission no option whatever but to propose constituencies which must cut across existing local government boundaries. In the case of my constituency, in the last three redistributions the Boundary Commission managed to avoid cutting across local government boundaries. As a result—this is important for county constituencies—our local communities were kept intact within the changed Parliamentary boundaries.
In the absence of the Home Secretary, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider the unwisdom of the Clause as it is drafted. The Home Secretary has claimed that the reason for not implementing the Boundary Commission's proposals is that the structure of local government is being reviewed. That is the argument on which


he rests his case. He cannot have it both ways. If he believes that local government boundaries in the future are relevant to Parliamentary representation, then existing local government boundaries should be respected in regard to the redistribution proposed under the Bill, especially since it seems likely, from all that has been said, that it will be a minimum of seven years, and it may be considerably longer, before there is any chance of a major redistribution.
I think that I speak for all my constituents when I say that they would not wish long-established local government areas to be broken up to satisfy a purely arithmetical equality between the three new constituencies, especially when such equality is being completely ignored elsewhere in the country.
I would not rely solely on what the Home Secretary said this afternoon about the disparity that may come about in the Greater London area. The Bill is quite explicit about this. The words are that
out of each pair of constituencies … three new constituencies with approximately equal electorates
must be formed. Those words are clear. They do not mean that the constituencies must be absolutely arithmetically equal, but the kind of disparity that the Home Secretary mentioned which perhaps might be allowed somehow does not seem to accord with those words.
In those circumstances, whatever happens to the Bill, I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate he will be able to give a clear assurance that the Bill will be amended to give greater flexibility to the Commission in its difficult task.

Mr. Moonman: May I join the hon. Member on that point and ask whether he would agree that in the original Boundary Commission Report there is sufficient latitude between the constituencies, which is perhaps in conflict with, I agree, the rather explicit statement in the Bill. There is, therefore, a conflict here which needs to be resolved.

Mr. Braine: I am grateful for that intervention, coming as it does from the hon. Member who represents the next-door constituency, because his intervention shows that there is not likely to be much division of opinion as between the parties, the local authorities or the local

councils in our two constituencies. But if the point is ignored then I think a great deal of trouble will be caused at the inquiries which, I understand, are to be arranged by the Commission to hear local objections. All this can be avoided if sufficient elasticity is given in the provisions of the Bill to the Commission.
The Commission has done this job before, and I myself have perfect faith and confidence in it, as an independent body, to do a sensible job again, but I feel that the Bill as it stands ties the Commission's hands in a way which will make very great difficulties indeed for our local communities and, indeed, for the Government themselves. I hope that the point is taken.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I intervene briefly in the debate for the reason that it seems to me that it is impossible for any Government to do right when it comes to redistributing Parliamentary seats—probably impossible for them to do right in the opinion of their own supporters, and certainly impossible to do right from the point of view of the Opposition.
Up to now in the debate we have had a swopping of legalistic arguments, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to what is presumably the right and reasonable thing to do. If one approaches it from this view one is forced to some conclusions which, from my point of view, are rather unhappy conclusions.
I have listened with care to the speeches made by hon. Members opposite in the hope of finding a convincing argument that the Government were wrong to introduce a part and not the whole of the Boundary Commission's proposals. I say that I listened in that hope because from a personal point of view the outcome of the recommendation that the London proposals shall be introduced is possibly politically disadvantageous but certainly personally disadvantageous, because I lose a part of my constituency and one conceivably may lose some element of political advantage, but one inevitably loses a number of personal friends.
I have this afternoon some friends in the House who have done me the honour to come along and have a cup of tea with me and among them are people who will


be transferred to another constituency if the Commission's proposals are carried out. This would be a source of personal regret to me, even more than any political disadvantage.
On the question of political advantages and disadvantages, it has been alleged that in London the benefit, if any, is to the Labour Party. I do not know whether that is so or not. What I can say is that I have not found it to be so. I have not heard shouts of protest coming from the local Conservative Party. I have not heard any screams from the Conservatives in Putney that this is gerrymandering to their disadvantage. Nothing of the sort has been heard. I would like to know where this assurance has come from—that this is gerrymandering which is to the disadvantage of the Conservative Party in London.
There has been a lot in the Press about it, but what do the political organisers say? Where are the people who really know what will happen? Is there any hon. Member opposite who can get up and say, "I know from my personal knowledge that what is being done is to my disadvantage or to the disadvantage of Conservatives in my constituency?" I have not heard this from any London Member opposite, so I take this suggestion with a wee grain of salt.

Sir Donald Kaberry: I am from Leeds, North-West, where I have 75,000 electors; in Leeds, South-East there are 28,000 electors. The Boundary Commission has recommended that Leeds, having been re-warded, should be divided into six equal constituencies We are now being denied it.

Mr. Jenkins: When one gives way one hopes that the intervention will have some relevance to what one is saying.

Mr. William Hamling: My hon. Friend was talking about London.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I was talking about London, and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) was talking about Leeds. I will talk later about areas outside London, and if the hon. Member wants to come back then by all means let him do so, but at the moment we are talking about London and the suggestion by hon. Members opposite that what is

being done is disadvantageous to the Conservative Party.
This is the allegation which has been made time and time again. Where are the facts on this? I have heard no informed support for that allegation anywhere at all. In Putney, I think that it is advantageous to the Tories and I suspect that the Conservative Party in my constituency believes this to be the case.
What hon. Members opposite are really saying is that the Government should either do the whole thing or nothing at all. This is really the argument which has been put forward, and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite have precluded themselves from making any other arguments by the nature of their Motion against the Government's proposals.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am glad to support my hon. Friend in saying that the Labour Government always act disadvantageously to the Labour Party. When Chuter Ede was Home Secretary he redistributed to the disadvantage of the Labour Party, and this action will be disadvantageous to it.

Mr. Jenkins: I would readily agree with my hon. Friend. Not only this Labour Government, but previous Labour Governments as well, have, as he has quite correctly pointed out, acted in this matter in what one might call a quixotically honourable fashion.
If it had been said by hon. Members opposite that the Government should just do nothing at all till after the local government boundaries have been settled I would have had some sympathy with that proposition. If it had been said that the whole thing should be put on one side till the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have been implemented, or that the whole operation should be done together, I would have found it hard to argue against that proposition. That proposition, however, has not been made. That would have been a reasonable proposition, but nobody on the opposite side of the House has made that proposition.
Hon. Members opposite have made the other proposition, that the Government should be precluded from any action other than total acceptance and that is a proposition which cannot be sustained. What they are saying is that the Government should immediately implement the whole of the Commission's Report and


I find that proposal entirely unconvincing. I find it unconvincing from the point of view of the Commission, which is much more relevant on this point than the lawyers, on the opposite side of the House. In considering the question of local government boundaries the Commission said, on page 3:
We found it convenient to review England in six groups, each group consisting of several geographical counties, with Greater London treated as a county. This made it possible for us to phase the review to take account of local government changes. We were able to make early progress in areas where local government boundaries were either already settled or unlikely to be settled before 1969, but areas liable to early change were held back.
The Commission itself, therefore, took into account, in making its recommendations and in ordering its business, the possibility of local government changes, and that is precisely what the Government are proposing to do.

Sir D. Kaberry: I am sure that the hon. Member must have studied very carefully paragraphs 374 and 376 of the Commission's Report, which clearly said that for many years to come local council boundaries will be the existing boundaries, and this applies to county borough boundaries. Why should not the Government act in accordance with that Commission's recommendation, certainly in respect of county boroughs like Leeds, Bradford, Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester? Why should they not do that?

Mr. Jenkins: While it is true, of course, that sweeping changes may he made elsewhere, the Government are entitled to act in the manner in which they have. What I am saying is that the proposition that the Government should do nothing at all would have been a more convincing proposition than that which the Opposition are putting forward.
It is useless for hon. Gentlemen opposite to pretend that local government and parliamentary boundaries are unconnected. They have preserved for a long time in the heart of the City of London the rottenest of all the rotten boroughs. The word "gerrymandering" should have been invented in the City of London and not in the United States. They have justified this by arguments about tradition.
The decision that the Government are taking, unwelcome though it may be to

some of us, is a decision which they are entitled to take. I shall, therefore, be unable to support the Amendment, which has been argued in an entirely unconvincing manner. I believe that the House, some hon. Members with considerable personal regret, will be compelled to accept the logic of the Government proposals.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: If the debate this afternoon has shown anything, it is that one can debate almost anything if one puts one's mind to it. We have spent a great deal of time on, and gone into tremendous detail about, the legal niceties and details of constituencies. These lengthy discussions obscure the basic and perfectly simple fact that the Bill is an electoral fiddle, nothing more and nothing less. The Government know it, hon. Gentlemen opposite know it, we know it and the country knows it. We are losing sight of the main issue by getting bogged down in detail.
Many hon. Members have suggested that the sovereignty of Parliament is called into question, but no one has suggested that Parliament is unable to make any change that it wishes in the law. Parliament has complete sovereignty in this matter. What I challenge is not whether Parliament is empowered to produce this Bill and pass it, but whether Parliament is well advised to do so, and whether, more particularly, Governments which have a large majority in Parliament are justified in using that majority to push through a Bill which fiddles the electoral machinery. That is what the Government are doing.
The Home Secretary has today taken the brunt of the argument. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting on the Front Bench. He has been a silent and, I think, possibly within himself a rather unhappy co-partner of the Home Secretary, because he also is in the dock. He is every bit as guilty as the Home Secretary. The Secretary of State for Scotland has also broken the law, and he should be ashamed of allowing himself to be put in that position.
The Attorney-General very gallantly stepped into the breach to try to defend from a legal point of view the position taken up by the Home Secretary. I pay tribute to the Attorney-General for his


courage, but it would have been better for the Home Secretary and everybody else if he had not been so brave and if he had not said what he did say. His explanation was so transparently weak and so utterly unconvincing, even to a non-lawyer like myself, that had I been convinced before by the legal argument in favour of the Bill I would have been gravely shaken by the way in which the Attorney-General struggled to justify it.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland is worse than that of the Home Secretary, because we do not have the report of the Wheatley Commission to justify any holding back?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's support, and I agree with what he says.
The Attorney-General touched on the real point when he said that it all depends upon the interpretation of "as soon as may be". He tried to make out that the words meant a little less proximate than as soon as possible. That is a legalistic argument carried to the point of absolute nonsense. Although it would have to be established legally what is the precise legal meaning of "as soon as may be", to most people, and legal opinion which I have consulted would agree, a fair interpretation of those words would be "as soon as practicable". I think that the courts would find similarly. If this is so, the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary are right now, in breach of the law for not having produced the reports at the right time with an Order implementing them.
The Scottish position, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, is slightly different. Even if we accept the argument that the Redcliffe-Maud Report having been published the Home Secretary is entitled to delay the English boundary changes—and I do not accept it—that argument cannot be adduced for Scotland, because the Wheatley Commission has not yet reported and nobody knows, not even the Secretary of State, officially at any rate, what the Wheatley Commission will report. It could recommend, although I do not suppose it will, no change whatever in the local government set-up in Scotland. I imagine

that is why the rather curious provision in Clause 1(4) has been written into the Bill. It empowers the Secretary of State before March 1970 to decide after all to implement the Boundary Commission proposals in Scotland. Whatever else we may say about him from time to time, the Secretary of State for Scotland is a most transparently honest and honourable man—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. Gentleman was sending me to Malaya a week ago!

Mr. Younger: I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity which this subsection gives him of making himself an honest man in this matter. It is no exaggeration to say that the Government's action in changing the boundaries purely for their own ends is something which I would be very unhappy to be a party to were I a member of the Government. There are many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who are in every respect honourable and upright men who should be feeling a qualm about supporting the Measure. Changing the rules of electoral procedure should not be undertaken lightly. The Secretary of State still has an opportunity to clear himself entirely of any such charge which may be laid against him. When the Wheatley Report is published, if the Secretary of State chooses to use the powers given in subsection (4) and implement the boundary changes in Scotland, he will do himself immense good in my eyes and in the eyes of the people of Scotland, and I hope that he will take that opportunity.
Arguments have been produced in support of the general idea behind the Bill. The theory that has been seriously put forward, and it must have been a struggle to find it, is that the real reason is that it would be terribly awkward to have two changes in boundaries within seven or eight years. Let us examine the meaning of that tremendous awkwardness. The changing of constituency boundaries causes personal inconvenience to Members of Parliament and to their constituents, but are the administrative problems so vast? The electoral register is made up by streets and districts, and it cannot be said that it is such a vast administrative job that it should not be


done, as a once-for-all effort, twice within seven or eight years. It simply does not bear examination.
Here is another case in which the argument is weaker when applied to Scotland than it is when applied to England and Wales. As the Secretary of State for Scotland will know, the actual running of elections in Scotland is not carried out in the same way as in England and Wales. It is the Sheriff's Department, a department not directly involved in local government, which is responsible for the running of elections and which will not he directly involved in implementing the Wheatley Commission proposals when they come along. The already fantastically weak argument produced by the Home Secretary for England and Wales is that much weaker still when applied to Scotland. I hope the Secretary of State will bear that in mind when he comes to his unenviable task of deciding what he will do about the situation once the Wheatley Commission has reported.
It was sad to see this afternoon one of the finest orators in the House, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), in a speech sparkling with his usual wit and as powerful as ever, employing an argument which was based on an entirely false point, which he did not appreciate even when interrupted. Indeed, his argument was backed up by a series of weak interventions from the other side.
What distresses me is the absolute cynicism with which the whole operation has been regarded by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. There has been no real attempt to make this out as a serious exercise in reducing administrative inconvenience. It is patent that this is a piece of gerrymandering, and everyone knows it. And nobody opposite cared enough about it to want to see their Chief Whip and say, "There are limits to what I can support." If a Government which I support produced a Bill such as this, whether it was favourable to the Conservative Party or against it, I would go to my Chief Whip and say, "I will not support it."
I hate the idea of seeking to change the electoral law for one's own advantage, or, for that matter, for one's own disadvantage. It is a thoroughly bad day for British democracy that a provision of this sort can be allowed to slip through

without so much as a squeak of protest from those inside the majority party.
I hope that this will be seen for what it really is—a naked piece of political gerrymandering. The House will suffer very badly in its reputation if the Bill goes through. And the Labour Party, as on every other occasion it has gerrymandered the constitutional and electoral machinery, will rue the day it twisted the law to suit its own party advantage. It should be thoroughly ashamed of this legislation.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: Having listened to the speech from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), I am quite content to let the House draw its own conclusion from such a display of amateur arrogance and condescension from such a recent addition to our ranks. My experience, for what it is worth, goes back some years. I claim no political privilege in this matter, but I have felt it advisable to come here with some degree of modesty, bowing to the knowledge that there are some people in this place who know more about things than the newcomers. But I did not rise to administer a rebuke. I merely happened to be unfortunate enough to hear the hon. Member's speech.
I have no constituency axe to grind in this debate. Even if I had I would hesitate to grind it. But as the Boundary Commission makes no proposals which affect my historic constituency in Lancashire, I do not rise to make any complaint on that score.
Having been present on similar occasions when matters of electoral advantage involving boundary changes have been considered in this ancient House, I have noticed that politicians of all parties—I do not exclude any of my own hon. Friends—being men of action and men of some discrimination, not completely naïve, always tend to dress up these matters of electoral advantage in tones of some high principle.
I thought that the particularly rumbustious speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was somewhat out of character. We all have some affection for the right hon. Gentleman when we get to know him, but he made Ignatius Loyala sound like a novice. He dressed up as matters of high principle


things which are not matters of high principle. If anybody wishes to discuss ethics or morality, this obviously is the place to discuss them. But I sometimes feel a little uneasy when matters such as these are presented in such a way.
I wish to address my remarks to the question of convenience. It is not always necessarily a matter of abstract principle but is a matter of what is good and reasonable for the country. I should like to call to mind that famous night in 1954 when an all-night sitting took place in this Chamber to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) referred. Far-reaching proposals were then presented to the House by a Conservative Government, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone was not then a Member. He was in another place, having succeeded his father there, until he was re-elected to this House by virtue of the provisions of a Bill passed for his convenience and that of other Peers who wished to take a seat in this House. We do not regret his return to this House. He often adds enlightenment to our debates and sometimes a great deal of frivolity and amusement.
On that occasion in 1954 we had the spectacle of a Conservative Government, whose Home Secretary at that time was the late Gwilym Lloyd-George, under the Premiership of Winston Churchill, which was determined to force through the House a series of recommendations by the Boundary Commission affecting a large number of important boroughs in this country and other rural and urban areas. For purely technical reasons, the Government of the day decided they must be forced through the House at any cost.
Therefore, it is somewhat ludicrous for hon. Gentlemen opposite to come to the House today and charge a Labour Home Secretary with gerrymandering the constitution, when the only occasions in the history of the House when boundary changes of any magnitude have been put forward have occurred in Conservative Administrations. When I look back over the history of this matter to the Reform Act of 1832, to the Rotten Boroughs and the stinking Tory compounds, when small numbers of insignificant people were sent as Members to

this House generation after generation, century after century, on the basis of no real electoral support in the country, it annoys me to hear such distinguished lawyers as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone stand up and wave his arms about and get all emotional on this hot day and charge us with gerrymandering the constitution.

Mr. Hamling: He should know about that.

Mr. Price: On that famous night, when we stayed here all night, there was a vigorous and acrimonious debate in which some Conservative Members were saying pretty nasty things about their own Government. They did not like the arrogant overbearing attitude of the Boundary Commission. It had refused personal interviews to every one of the affected boroughs, including the great County Borough of Manchester, which at that time was returning five Conservative Members and four Labour Members—incidentally all personal friends of mine.
When this was being forced through the House everyone who applied for an interview with the Boundary Commission on behalf of the large authorities was refused that interview with one exception. That exception was the previous Home Secretary Mr. Chuter Ede, who at that time represented South Shields. I am relying on my memory here. The Manchester Members were very indignant about the conduct of the Government, which they normally supported, so much so that the five went down into a room in another part of this House with me, and at that time I was an Opposition Whip, so that I was not an anonymous Member of the House.
I had a cup of tea with them and I can remember the names of three of them. One was that very venerable and highly respected Member of the Tory Establishment Dame Florence Horsbrugh, then the Member for Manchester, Moss Side, another was that honourable and respected Member of this House, who is still with us, the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), and another was the then Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, Mrs. Eveline Hill. The names of the other two escape me now. They have long retired from the service of this House.
They voted against the Government, which only succeeded in steamrolling a series of Boundary Commission recommendations through the House by issuing a special Whip to the Ulster Members of Parliament, 12 of them, who had no constituency interests. At that time the Government had an overall majority of only 16. The Labour Opposition had polled a bigger vote at the election but had returned slightly fewer members. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone is not here, he entertained us so well. Doubtless he will come in later and throw his weight about. If he gets in a few interventions he will be happy. He complained that we were doing something which is an offence against the constitution, yet this process in 1954 was only endorsed in this House by 12 Ulster Members being brought here to vote down the Opposition in their own party—and no one knows more in this world about gerrymandering than Ulster Members. I say that without any personal disrespect to any Member in sound of my voice.
For the Tory Party now to come here in a white gown of chastity and rebuke us for doing something that is morally offensive is something that we must repudiate. The House has cooled down a good deal over this subject. Why we need to have a debate on a subject like this which is capable of enough spontaneous combustion on one of the hottest days of the summer, God knows. It is cooling down a bit outside and I am trying to cool things down a little inside.
I hope that I am sufficiently liberal-minded to tolerate opinions which I do not share, to listen to them with respect. I am not so naive as to suppose that this Boundary Commission is necessarily a good thing. Rightly or wrongly it was established years ago, after the Coalition Government broke up, by Herbert Morrison and one or two others, including Mr. Chuter Ede. I do not believe that it was necessarily a wise move to establish the Boundary Commission. This has not been challenged before, and I wish now, after sketching in some historical background, for my own enjoyment, which I hope has not caused any displeasure in the House, to challenge the whole concept of a permanent Boundary Commission.
It is very nice for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is not yet in his

place, to come here and make favourable noises about the honour and integrity of our old friend Herbert Morrison, a friend to all of us. It is strange, when the witness cannot be called to verify or contradict what is being quoted as his philosophy, that he is quoted with approbation, yet when the witness was here he did not get this kind of response fro mthe right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends. He was often execrated as a Tammany Hall party boss who fixed everything behind the Chair. I am not competent to pass judgment on that period of history, although I know something about it.
From my own experience, and I speak for no one else but myself, I think that the idea that we can set up a permanent high-powered commission such as the Boundary Commission, with a professional staff of statisticians, demographers, cartographers, geographers, lawyers, accountants and all the rest of the apparatus, is wrong.

Mr. George Willis: They are all lawyers.

Mr. Price: My right hon. Friend says that they are all lawyers, but I do not know. This permanent organisation has been erected to sit in permanent session and to keep under permanent scrutiny the development of constituencies as they increase or decrease through the movement of population and other factors.
If we establish an institution of this kind vested with continuing powers to sit and fiddle about in camera with collections of maps, vital statistics and all sorts of secret reports being fed to it and never seeing the light of day, we may not get the result that this House would expect when it was first designed. Any good democrat must agree that where constituencies become too large or too small compared with the rest, whilst we cannot get mathematical equality between them all, constituencies should represent real communities, not merely collections of people scraped together regardless of community interests. This House is the sounding board of representative government where community feeling, sentiment or grievance can be ventilated on the Floor of the House if they have had the sense to return a competent and honest Member.
When this little thing has blown over and we have gone through all the motions


of making ersatz and synthetic protests about the perfidy of the Government, which is the usual way for politicians to swap this kind of punch across the Floor of the House, we should seriously consider whether this Commission should be called into being at appropriate intervals to deal with major distortions where constituencies are very large or very small, but not allow it to create a situation where 400 out of 630 constituencies will be up ended and chopped to bits at one time.
I agree with what the Home Secretary has told the House. Those who wish to quibble about the legal borderline arguments which have been floating around the Table for some hours are entitled to enjoy themselves. I am not entering into that sort of baby house. But this House ought seriously to consider, as a matter of principle, whether it is good for this country every so often to get these large floods of recommendations which completely disorganise the relationships of this House to many parts of the country.
I do not believe that anything held in secret is good. I make no charges, no aspersions, no reflections.
The demon king returns. Perhaps he will be good enough to read what I have said about him—

Mr. Hogg: Every word.

Mr. Price: —as I have had to listen to him. I am grateful that he has paid me the compliment of returning just as I am winding up. However, I might be tempted to start again.
I never will be convinced that a permanent Boundary Commission is good for this country.
I remember, with affection, Mr. Speaker Morrison, who presided over our deliberations in 1954. He was generally fair to all parties and was highly respected. The House was in turmoil for most of the night. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was sitting in the other place, having succeeded his father and donned the ermine robe, which he discarded as of no account at the first opportunity we gave him to come back here. Mr. Speaker Morrison was very upset by the unruly debate and the acrimonious words which were flung across the Chamber through-

out the night. He called me to the Chair towards the end of the debate and said: "Price, cannot some of you get together after this? We must never have a scene like this again. Something ought to be done about it". That was 15 years ago, and nothing has been done about it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman spoke to the wrong man.

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman says that he spoke to the wrong man. He could not have spoken to a better man. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has only just come in and he does not know anything about it. He is the sort of Tory Party cheeky chappie who comes in and does not know anything about it.

An Hon. Member: The Max Miller of the Opposition.

Mr. Price: The Max Miller of the Opposition. However, I do not wish to be led astray. I want to wind up.
I appeal to this honourable House—I know that I do not often appeal successfully, but not always in vain either—that when we have settled the Bill, which I shall support—[Interruption.] I am not a party hack, Quintin. You know that.
I will support the Bill because I believe that to have this general post just now would be a bad thing for the country. It may be a bad thing for the Labour Party or for the Tory Party, but let everyone form his own judgment about that. But I will support the Bill in the belief that, if the House goes on tolerating a situation in which a permanent Boundary Commission can flood the House with hundreds of changes whenever it is minded to do so, it can be a bad thing for the constituencies, for the reputation of the House and for Parliamentary government.

8.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Perhaps I may be forgiven for making an intervention at this point. Reference has been made to the silence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I took the decision not to wind up the debate for the simple reason that I expected that this would be mainly an English debate. That has proved to be so. There has been only one Scottish speaker.
Although there is a Motion on the Order Paper signed by seven right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the party opposite, apart from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), only two have even shown their faces, which shows the lack of interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I have all the names and I have been watching carefully. For the greater part of the debate, there have been no more than two Tory Scottish back benchers in the House, apart from the hon. Member.
I prefer the hon. Member for Ayr when he is offensive rather than when he is flattering, especially when he says that everyone knows that I am a transparently honest man. I recollect his speech in Scotland not so long ago telling me that I was criminally irresponsible and suggesting that I should be sent to Barlinnie for some reason or other. He should make up his mind and be consistent; but he is rather immature in these maters. He should appreciate that he is not entitled to speak for Scotland on this business, or for anyone else.
The simple fact is that we do not have the Report of the Wheatley Commission. He seemed to think that that was a reason for implementing the Report of the Boundary Commission forthwith. May I remind him of our debates on police amalgamation? What was I told then? "Do not do it. The Wheatley Commission is to report." On the Social Work (Scotland) Bill, the party opposite said, "Do not do it." On the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, just the other week, what did they tell me? "Do not do it." I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ayr heard the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) because he mentioned this.
I do not know what the Wheatley Commission will do.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: rose—

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman intends to wind up on a wider point, and I do not want to be too long.
Hon. Members are right: I do not know what the Wheatley Commission will report. As Secretary of State, I do not think that I should intervene with a Royal Commission, and try to guide it or influence it or find out what it is doing. The only hon. Member whom I have

heard speaking with a show of knowledge of the thoughts of the Wheatley Commission was the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who spoke about it at that Box in our recent debate on town and country planning, and I was shocked and surprised. However, he may not have chosen his words well.
We know from the Redcliffe-Maud Report that the electoral map in England and Wales will be torn up, that there will be tremendous changes and that it will have a profound effect upon boundaries. The hon. Member for Ayr has only fought one or two elections, first, as a candidate and then as a Member of Parliament. My experience, over a far greater period, is that there is considerable administrative difficulty in Scotland because of changes of boundaries, for electoral and local government officers, and even for parties—that is important, although I do not put it very high—and we do not want constant changes in this way.
I know that, in Scotland, it makes it easier for me to make up my mind. More than half the Scottish constituencies—for example, those of the hon. Member for Ayr and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell)—are not affected. For them, it does not matter what I do.

Mr. Younger: Since the right hon. Gentleman has got about three separate facts wrong, I can bear it no longer. That fact is also wrong. My constituency is affected.

Mr. Ross: Not in any major way, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. I live in his constituency and I know it reasonably well. My constituency is affected, but not to a major extent.
Some English Members might like to ponder upon the fact that eight Scottish constituencies have electorates of fewer than 30,000. If we accepted the Boundary Commission's Report five of these would remain. For decades we have had these small constituencies, and that fact makes nonsense of the protestations from hon. Members opposite "One vote, one value". I hope that nobody will argue that one vote in a certain part of the North of Scotland should automatically be worth the same amount in another part of Scotland.
I resent very much the allegation of a "fiddle". It is very easy to make these charges and to summon up the necessary steam and get oneself into the right mood. I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn would not entirely agree about the electoral outcome of not doing anything about the Boundary Commission's Report. Many people believe that if we do not do anything about it the party that will benefit in certain parts of Scotland will be the Tory Party.
I want to make the position in Scotland clear. The Bill gives us the right to defer any decision about the Boundary Commission's Report until March of next year. We expect to have the Wheatley Commission's report later this summer. When I receive it it will be up to me to determine its effect upon the Parliamentary boundaries in Scotland, and to make up my mind about it. I sincerely hope that no wild statements will be made about my intentions. It would be wrong for me to make up my mind now. I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of what they said about legislation. I remind them that the Boundary Commission itself said that it had taken into account existing boundaries as far as possible, although it was not bound to do so to the same extent in Scotland as in England and Wales. In those circumstances, it would be very unwise to race ahead implementing the report. I really must have freedom to wait.
As for breaking the law, hon. Members opposite should make up their minds. I prefer the legal wisdom of the advisers to the Government rather than that of the hon. Member for Ayr, especially when he gave the interpretation of the courts, although he declared himself not to be a lawyer. He agreed that we had a right to do what we were doing, which was quite a different argument from the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who called this a constitutional enormity. We have a right to do what we are doing, and we are wise to do it, in all the circumstances, especially in relation to the advice that we have received about waiting for the Wheatley report.

8.44 p.m.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: Without being presumptuous, I would think that we have

had a good debate. Many good debating points have been made, together with some historical reminiscences, and there has been much fun and levity. This saddens me, because at the end of it all we are still left with the fact that the Home Secretary—the custodian of our law and order—has broken the law and has been compelled to table a Bill to indemnify himself.
I discount what the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said this afternoon. I do not accept his interpretation of the law. It shows to what extent the Government will go to justify some of their actions, and the Attorney-General has signed his own death warrant. Whether the Bill goes through or not, the hon. and learned Gentleman has signed his death warrant, but if it goes through, I understand that he loses his seat as well.
When Parliament debates religious matters, or questions of real conscience, we are supposed to be at our best. I have wondered today whether we have really grasped the full significance of the proposals in this unfortunate Bill. As I listened to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), I was satisfied that he had not grasped the full significance of what we are debating today. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Boundary Commission's recommendations and whether we should have a Boundary Commission. I think that he showed thereby that he has missed the whole point of what we are debating today.
Of course Parliament must remain supreme, but in the matter of elections and boundaries, which, after all, are the rules of the game, there must be full consultation and not unilateral party action for obvious party advantage. In this respect, why do we not use Mr. Speaker's Conference again? Was there any party consultation at all about these proposals?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a point which has been made on a number of occasions and which I have not so far heard answered. In the middle of last year, before it was known what the Boundary Commission was going to propose, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was going


into public print saying that he was going to the courts to enforce action by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said something which is wholly contrary to the facts. I have never said that I would go to the courts in any capacity about this matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw.

Mr. Lyon: I should certainly withdraw if my recollection is at fault—

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong.

Mr. Lyon: —but I shall look the matter up again and draw it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention. My recollection is, however, clear, that there was an announcement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to the courts. In those circumstances, how on earth could we have had an agreement?

Sir E. Bullus: We learn from experience, and I regret that I gave way for that intervention.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department knows full well that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are unlikely to be implemented. Even if there were a chance of their being implemented, how long would it take? The right hon. Gentleman based his arguments on the fact that the Commission's proposals are to be implemented. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman could have made an honest case by deciding, either to do all the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, or to do nothing until after the next General Election. At least that would have been consistent.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed the other day that he was not altering his own constituency, which would give him an advantage, under the Boundary Commission's recommendations. But he seeks to alter my constituency, and I do not want that done in a selective manner. My constituency, which I have represented for 20 years with varying majorities, from the present 4,000 to 11,000, is to be made one of the strongest Tory constituencies in the country. I do not want that at the expense of a colleague whose constituency is to be wiped out under these proposals, and it is there-

fore natural that I should ask why my constituency of 49,000 electors should be increased to 68,500 electors at a time when Ladywood remains at 18,000 and when the Prime Minister's constituency remains at 90,000? No boundaries should be altered until the whole proposals of the Boundary Commissions are to be implemented.
Parliament is the poorer for such partisan tactics and democracy suffers. Such tactics cause further loss of faith in our present-day Parliamentarian and politician. The House is brought into disrepute. It was the present Home Secretary whose last action as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to devalue the £. It was done at a time when I had asked a Parliamentary Question seeking a categorical assurance that there would be no devaluation. But he was actually considering devaluation when he gave me the assurance I asked for. I have made no party political capital hitherto of this because I realised that he was in a difficult position and had an excuse. But today he has no excuse. He and the Government are tarnished by their actions today. He should bury this squalid Bill or he should honourably resign.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus), who represents a seat in Greater London, did not talk in greater detail about the provisions in the Bill relating to London. Indeed, it is surprising that, throughout the debate, the Opposition have been curiously coy about the provisions relating to London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) pointed out, contrary to the general view, which was expressed in The Times the other day, there is no obvious advantage for the Labour Party in the provisions of the Bill relating to London.
On the contrary, as has been proved on previous occasions, any redistribution in London which gets rid of smaller constituencies does not help the Labour Party. That was proved in 1950 and it will be proved again. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite talk about gerrymandering. If there was gerrymandering to be done, the obvious thing to do was not to bring in changes in


London which will be of disadvantage to the Labour Party. In Tower Hamlets, Newham, Southwark, Lewisham, and all the inner parts of South-East London, there will be no advantage to the Labour Party. On the contrary, there is the obvious case of seat after seat disappearing which for many years in Parliamentary elections have been safe Labour seats. I repudiate entirely the Opposition charge that this is a gerrymandering Bill.
As a result of the Bill, we shall see under-representation of London in relation to some other places. I am amazed that hon. Members who make speeches about Scotland drift in and drift out careless of the fact that, in many safe Tory areas in Scotland, there are very small electorates. They do not ever complain about that.
In relation to the G.L.C. elections, everyone knows that it was Conservative policy to introduce single-member constituencies as soon as possible. We are doing it. We are carrying out Tory Party policy, so how can one describe that as gerrymandering? Everyone knows that, when the party with a very large majority is defending that majority, and is defending boroughs which have been won on a basis of "win one, win the lot", it is to its advantage if those boroughs revert to single-member constituency voting. But we are carrying out that change, so how can we be accused of gerrymandering?
The remarkable thing is that the Tory Party is always squealing about these matters. It was squealing way back in 1948. Bully bottom in this debate, the rumbustious right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), was wearing a different hat then; he was representing Oxford. He was squealing and crying then as he has squealed and cried today.
The Tories have a curious inferiority complex. They boast about how they will wipe the floor with the Labour Party at the next General Election, but tonight they are counting their little gains here and their little gains there, because they are not sure; they are getting the excuses for their defeat ready now. They are rather like the horizontal heavyweights of long ago, who said, "We was robbed. They changed the rules". That was the cry of the hori-

zontal champions, which is what the Tories will be at the next election. And it will not be because of these changes. It will be in spite of them. Despite our losses in Central London, we shall beat them.
This debate has shown the usual Tory lack of confidence. The Tories have cold feet. The charge of gerrymandering was made in 1948. On that occasion the Tories complained bitterly. Winston Churchill called it a "dirty racket ". He described it as "one of the shabbiest political manoeuvres on record ". That was his description of the Bill we introduced in 1948. There was talk about creating additional Socialist seats. As Winston Churchill said, "They decided to cheat". On top of the redistribution, we abolished the university seats. Yet the 1950 result is now accepted historically as the consequence of the redistribution; and Herbert Morrison was blamed for Labour's near defeat in 1950 and for Labour's defeat in 1951.
Let the House not forget that when we lost the 1951 election we polled more votes than the Tories, but got 30 fewer seats. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was then talking about our gerrymandering. Goodness knows how one can gerrymander constituency redistribution and then lose an election. We polled more votes than the Tories, but got 30 fewer seats. Fine gerryman-dering! [An HON. MEMBER: "Incompetent."] That may be true. They do much better things in Tory Northern Ireland; they know how to gerrymander there.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the Tory Party's difficulties. The Tories had been over-represented in the House for 50 years. In 1918, they were over-represented by 112 seats on the votes then polled, in 1922 by 92 seats in 1923 by 17 seats, in 1924 by 122 seats, in 1929 by 22 seats, in 1931 by 120 seats. What a gerrymander that was! What a "fiddle" that was.

Dr. Winstanley: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Hamling: No, I will not.
In 1935 they were over-represented by 91 seats. In 1945 something went wrong; the poor chaps were under-represented to the tune of 28 seats. They restored


the balance and Labour helped them in 1948, because in 1950 they were overrepresented by 10 seats, in 1951 by 21 seats, in 1955 by 31 seats, and in 1959 by 52 seats. Then something went wrong again in 1964 and they were over-represented to the tune of only 24 seats. In 1966 they were under-represented by 10 seats. This is the party which moans and groans. This is the party which complains about the rules being changed.
And I will tell the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that it may well be that the Liberals have been consistently under-represented. That is what he wanted me to say. I have all the figures. I will lend them to him afterwards, and he can quote them.
The fact is that the Conservative Party is the biggest collection of moaners in the business. It has been so accustomed to ruling the country in its own tinpot fashion, and so accustomed to gerrymandering elections that it obviously suspects everyone else of being guilty of its own vices. That is its trouble.
If one looks at the matter sensibly one remembers what the Tories were saying in 1948 and knows the situation now. They were accusing us of gerrymandering then. They were wrong then, as they knew in their hearts—

Mr. Hogg: They were right.

Mr. Hamling: They knew when the 1950 Election came along that they would get a bonus from the Act that we put through, but that did not stop them playing their party games then and it does not stop them playing party games now. It is very significant that from not one Conservative have we had any analysis of what the results will be in London—and that despite the stories they have put abroad in the newspapers. And we know where those stories come from. We know where the political correspondents get the idea about an advantage to Labour in London—

Mr. Michael Foot: Would my hon. Friend suggest to the Government that if hon. Members opposite still complain again the London proposals we might move an Amendment to leave those proposals out of the Bill and revert to the present position?

Mr. Hamling: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael

Foot), with his customary ingenuity, has thought of something that had not occurred to me. I would with the greatest pleasure add my name to such an Amendment.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: As I believe that I shall be the hon. Member most affected, I must say that I believe that the Measure changes the rules. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell the House when there has been a redistribution of seats Bill without consultation with the Opposition parties. Furthermore, we know that there has not been any consultation between the Government and the English Boundary Commission, because the Home Secretary admitted that to me in reply to a Parliamentary Question the other day. Again, why has consideration not been given to those constituencies which are expanding very quickly and which by October, 1970 will have electorates in excess of 100,000? It will be interesting to be told why such consideration has not been given to them.
A lot of play has been made of the Boundary Commission Report. In page 6, the Commissioners say that the upper and lower limits they have taken were electorates of 40,000 and 80,000. No one on either side of the House has argued that we must have a mathematical precision of equality, but the fact remains that the Government are creating a constituency of South-East Hertfordshire with an electorate of less than 35,000, and that constituency will be with us for some time.
I hate to bring in my constituency, because this is not a Cook's tour, but I believe that it shows the sort of situation at one end of the scale. It has a present electorate of 85,000. By October of this year the figure will be 100,000, and by October, 1970, it will be 120,000. If one accepts a seven or eight year time scale, and no one seriously denies that, the electorate will then be between 150,000 and 160,000. The Home Office has already received representations from some of my local authorities, and will know that these figures are true. The effect of votes at 18 is that most constituencies will have an average overall increase of 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. in their electorates. I believe that in large overspill constituencies such as Cheadle,


Billericay, and my own constituency, there will be a higher proportion of young people aged between 18 and 22 years.
I went into this with some of the local authorities in my area. At the moment in some overspill areas, which form a large part of the constituency, the proposition is 9 per cent., and by the middle or late seventies it will be 12 per cent. The situation in my constituency and in others will be exacerbated. If the Home Secretary thinks that by increasing electorates like this while votes at 18 are coming in, in view of the crocodile tears he shed in his opening speech, perhaps in winding up he will say how this can be otherwise.
The interim review is now wiped out. Some local authorities in my district and I wrote to the Boundary Commission pointing out that on its existing proposals the electorate would be very large and asking what could be done about it. The Commission replied to Meriden Rural District Council saying:
Under Section 2(3) of the House of Commons (Distribution of Seats) Act, 1949 the Commission have power to submit from time to time recommendations for particular constituencies, and should the need arise they would consider exercising this power at some future date in respect of the Meriden constituency ".
The Government apparently have kicked the Commission in the teeth for that letter was dated less than two months ago and this provision is no longer to apply. There is now no way in which large constituencies such as mine, which are not affected by interim arrangements, can be helped.
Many hon. Members have made great play with the question of local authority boundaries. My constituency has within its boundaries five first-tier local authorities. There are three county boroughs and two counties. That is not a unique situation. I thank the Home Office for giving me information at short notice saying that there are 126 constituencies in England, excluding Greater London, with two first-tier local authorities, 21 with three first-tier authorities, 10 with four, and three with five.
This situation will continue probably for another eight or nine years. Can the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) imagine a situation in which a number of hon. Members will be dealing with

three, four, or five first-tier local authorities, not to mention other local authorities? Constituencies with 40,000 electors have two or more first-tier local authorities within their boundaries at the moment. This makes absolute nonsense of the Maud excuse put up by the Government.
So far we have been looking at constituencies whose boundaries are 15 years old. Many have asked why there should be a redistribution. One hon. Member asked why there should be this periodic review. The reason is that the population, bless their hearts, like to move around. They do so largely as a direct result of Government policy. The reason why my constituency is exploding in population is that the Government in 1965 designated an overspill area to be built in four years, which will be larger than the City of Worcester. This has been repeated outside London, Manchester, Liverpool and other major cities. While we rightly ask that new towns should be formed this problem will remain. It is no good saying that it can be solved by sweeping it under the carpet for seven or eight years. By that time there will be a number of constituencies with electorates of 150,000.
This is unfair to those who are represented in this House because they will still have only one vote and because, with the best will in the world, however hard a Member works he cannot do the same standard of work on behalf of 150,000 electors as he could with a reasonably sized electorate. Finally, and, perhaps, least important, it is, particularly physically and financially, a strain upon the individual Member. I therefore regard the Bill as deplorable and hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reconsider it in the light of these facts, every one of which I can substantiate.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Despite all the speeches from that side of the House—there have been no fewer than three from the Front Bench already—no tolerable defence has been proferred for a deliberate and flagrant breach of Ministers' statutory duties under Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act. This requires Ministers to lay the reports of the Boundary Commissions before Parliament, together with draft Orders


for giving effect to their recommendations. The only qualification is that this can be done with modifications, and, if so, the Government have to explain the reasons for the modifications. The Government have transgressed, and have done so shamelessly.
We welcome the fact that the Attorney-General intervened, prompted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), but we received the minimum of enlightenment from him. The Home Secretary had said that he had presented the reports, but not laid them. The Attorney-General said that the Home Secretary had laid the reports, but not under the 1949 Act. Which of these is right? We hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who is to wind up, will tell us. Whichever version proves to be the official description of this mysterious happening, can pedantry and humbug go any further? What is the difference between the procedure for laying these Orders today and the procedure adopted with the previous Orders in 1954? They also appeared as Command Papers. I hope that this will be explained.
Some hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), asked where the supremacy of Parliament was safeguarded in the procedure under the Act. The answer, of course, is that Parliament has the power to reject a draft Order once it has been laid by the Minister. The procedure for rejection, amendment and relaying by the Government, should they wish to do so, is set out in Section 3(5) of the 1949 Act. But this is a question of the wisdom of the House of Commons in rejecting the recommendations of the Commissions. It does not alter the important point that independent Commissions have made their recommendations, and that it is the duty of the Government to place them before Parliament.
The intention was clear, that the Commissions' recommendations should be placed before Parliament without the Government delaying, rejecting or materially changing them in the meantime.

Mr. Michael Foot: On his interpretation of the constitution, which is a quite incredible doctrine, would the hon. Gentleman explain what the Minister's position is to be? Is he to present these pro-

posals to Parliament without having any opinion whatsoever about them?

Mr. Campbell: In 1954, the Minister presented them and then said that he would listen to what was said before deciding what to do. He listened to what was said by many hon. Members who had objections, on both sides of the House, but then decided to go ahead with the Order, and it went through with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission—

Mr. Richard: On this point—

Mr. Campbell: No, I have answered the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). We cannot get bogged down on this point.
That, in turn, was based on the sensible inter-party agreement which had been reached and is now being violated in the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I have already given way and am not doing so again.

Mr. Michael Foot: Falsification.

Mr. Campbell: I shall answer the hon. Member if he listens. There would be no point in having these Commissions, so clearly independent of the Government, if the Government of the day were free to intervene by mutilating or nullifying their recommendations before Parliament had had an opportunity to comment upon them.

Mr. Richard: Will the hon. Member give way on this point?

Mr. Campbell: When I have finished what I am saying. I think that I shall answer the points as I go along.
The intention is that there should be no opportunity for skulduggery between the submission of the Commission's reports and their consideration by Parliament, but in the present case it is clear that the Government are openly engaged in skulduggery, which is exactly what the law was designed to preclude.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. I understand him to say that the Government are under a duty to lay the reports before Parliament and that Parliament is entitled to say that they should be amended as it thinks fit. Is the hon


Member seriously suggesting that it would have been better for the Government to have laid the whole of the Commission's Reports and recommendations before the House and then recommended the House to throw them all out, except for London?

Mr. Campbell: With all respect to the hon. Member's legal experience, he has got it wrong and he has misquoted me. He should know that the House cannot amend an Order; it can only reject it. The Government then have to decide whether to bring it in again, to amend it or not to bring it back.
The supremacy of Parliament is safeguarded in Section 3 of the Act, but it is a matter of the wisdom of the House whether to reject the recommendations of these independent Commissions. The Government are, therefore, seeking to change the law retrospectively and to indemnify themselves at the same time.

Mr. Callaghan: There is a technical point here; it is what my hon. Friend was saying. There would not be one Order laid. A separate Order would be laid for every constituency in which changes are made. It would, therefore, have been necessary for me to have laid about 90 Orders, each of which would have been debatable and on each of which the Government would have said, "Very well. Now we ask you to turn it down." That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) was making. He was asking the hon. Member whether he believes that to be a good way of doing business in the House.

Mr. Campbell: I am suggesting that the Government should do what is laid down in the Act. If they find it inconvenient to submit a large number of Orders, if the Home Secretary is required to do that, rather than one Order, that is a matter which the House decided when the Act was passed in 1949 and later amended.
The Bill seeks to postpone indefinitely the recommendations for England except for Greater London, but they seek to tinker with certain large constituencies and with seven which straddle the Greater London boundary. The feeble reason which is given is that the Redcliffe-Maud

Commission's Report has arrived—a transparently feeble pretext. It seems probable that at least five years will pass before action is complete on that report. If the Government's reason were valid, they could have raised this matter three years ago when the Royal Commission was first appointed. It is clear, however that this is simply a last-minute excuse which has been produced to try to get away with this squalid manoeuvre.
In the meantime, the imbalance between constituencies will grow. If the Government's Bill goes through, future changes will not be made until at least 25 years after the previous changes took place following a general review. Some, no doubt, will have grown to 120,000 or more. Others, in contrast, particularly in the centres of large cities, are likely to diminish to derisory figures because of the movement of population.
When we consider Scotland the Government's actions are even more shifty and suspect, because the Wheatley Commission on Local Government. which is the equivalent in Scotland to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission in England, has not yet even reported. The Bill would suspend action on the Scottish Boundary Commission's Report and would allow the Secretary of State to act before the end of March, 1970, and it has been explained that this would give the Secretary of State time to see what the Wheatley Commission, when it has reported, recommends. There is similar provision in Northern Ireland where, we understand, proposals for reform of local government have been published today.
The pretext of the Maud Report for postponing the recommendations in England, except London, is bogus and irrelevant, but the Government are compounding this folly by their proposed action for Scotland and Northern Ireland. No similar report has yet been submitted for Scotland. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone said, a study for England has shown that if the proposals in the Maud Report were broadly accepted it would not greatly affect the Boundary Commission's recommendations. He referred to the study in question. The Home Secretary disputes this, and we shall be interested to hear in the Under-Secretary of State's reply, why he disputes it.
Then we come to the question of timing. It consideration of the Maud Report and, later, the Wheatley Report provides controversy and public discussion, and if there are substantial changes, as there may well be, then it is likely to take longer than five years before action is completed. The Government's case, therefore, falls completely to the ground, because for all of that time this country will be denied the benefit of up-to-date electoral boundary reform.
As regards Scotland, we have the Minister of State's estimate, in the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on 23rd January, of the time which it would probably take before the Wheatley recommendations could be acted upon, whatever the Wheatley Report will contain when it appears. We were then discussing the Scottish Town and Planning Bill and existing planning procedures. The Minister of State said of action on the Wheatley report:
it might take as much as 10 years or as little as four".
He then went on to say, and this is even more significant, that
it is a very long time to leave everything frozen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 23rd January, 1969; c. 101.]
That is what the Government said about planning procedures—I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is listening—

Mr. Ross: Oh, I am.

Mr. Campbell: —which they and we wanted to change. We did not dissent from the changes needed in planning procedures, but it is entirely different from what the Government have been saying on Parliamentary boundaries which, unlike planning procedures, need frequent reviews because of the continuous movements of population.
The Secretary of State, when he intervened, spoke about our waiting for Wheatley. He had misunderstood what some of my hon. Friends have been saying. We were complaining that the reform of local government in Scotland was being postponed. We have been two years ahead in Scotland—in 1963—when we started a study of the whole question of reorganisation of local government in Scotland.
Our complaint, when we were discussing the planning Bill and other Measures,

was that we ought by then, if we had still kept our lead of two years, to have had proposals for local government reform which would have enabled us to tie them up with the planning procedures. But we were not trying to postpone them. We were merely complaining about the delays caused by the Government.
Then there is this curious discretion given in the Bill to the Secretary of State for Scotland to take a decision before the end of March. We understand from what the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have said that when the Wheatley Report is published it is for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide. Perhaps the Minister will tell us: on what considerations will the Secretary of State take this important decision?
The Wheatley Report is the essential starting point for a major public debate on local government which will ensue in Scotland. Any assumption that the Wheatley recommendations will automatically later be translated precisely, or even imprecisely, into a new system of local government without changes would be unwise, and would be taking a great deal for granted.
I ask the Minister to tell us whether hon. Members or other persons and bodies in Scotland who will be interested in the Wheatley recommendations will have a chance of giving their views before the Secretary of State takes his decision. because if he just looks at the recommendations before there has been an opportunity for proper discussion or suggestions for changes and then takes his decision it will be unsatisfactory, to say the least.
The Minister of State provided an interesting forecast on behalf of the Government when he said in the speech from which I have already quoted:
When we propose a Measure to reform local government, it will be a big one and a contentious one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee; 23rd January, 1969, c. 101.]
Such a Bill cannot possibly appear before the end of March, as I am sure Ministers will agree.
This provision concerning suspension up to March and the Secretary of State's decision is just the kind of monkeying about with the 1949 Act and the recommendations of the Boundary Commission that Sections 2 and 3 were designed to preclude.
I ask the Minister to tell us also whether the Government yet know what is to be in the Wheatley Commission's Report, or are they acting completely blindly in presenting the Bill? It is perfectly clear that neither the Maud Report nor the Wheatley Report can be acted on by May, 1971, which is the last date when there can be a General Election. The Government are, therefore, denying the country the benefit of up-to-date Parliamentary constituencies as provided for by Statute for the next election and, unless changes are made by us in this Measure, if it is passed, for at least one election after that.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) based his speech on the assumption that the Government were suggesting that the changes for Parliamentary boundaries and local government should all be done at the same time. Unless the Government have been even more misleading than I thought, that was not their suggestion. They were simply reversing the order—the changes in local government to be carried out first, then the necessary review by the Boundary Commissions, leading to the boundary changes.
This high-handed action by the Government is stultifying the system. The Boundary Commissions arranged their work in order to report, as was expected, this year. There can be no up-to-date constituencies making use of their latest information unless their recommendations are now put into effect.
This is not an exact science, as I think everyone in the House accepts, because, for example, facts of geography, such as islands or areas of sparse population, pose special problems. Mr. Speaker himself, as Chairman, knows the sincere and dedicated work which is done by members of the Boundary Commissions to produce the best recommendations in the light of the latest situations in their areas. These recommendations lose their value as time passes. The recommendations now before the House will lose their value in five years' time because they will be out of date. In eight years' time they will be of even less value.
It will mean wasting the efforts of the Commissions over the last four years. The recommendations should be brought in immediately to enable the country to

avail itself of the labours and impartial judgment of these Commissions. We are told that the cost of the review was £95,000, but much of it will be wasted unless these up-to-date proposals can be used.
The Bill also stops the Boundary Commissions from carrying out the further interim reports which might enable them to do something to bring constituencies up to date. Time and money expended by many bodies and individuals in giving evidence and attending public inquiries also have been wasted. The Commissions have been treated outrageously and it would be understandable if the members felt fed up.
What can be the real reason for the Government's manoeuvre? Why are they reduced to breaking the current law and trying to change it afterwards? There is agreement amongst all commentators, partial or impartial, that there are disadvantages in the Commissions' recommendations to the Labour Party electorally, while the proposals in the Bill are likely to help the Labour Party. The Home Secretary has placed himself in a position where it must be deduced that he is actuated by party advantage. Every other reason that has been advanced is specious or irrelevant.
Look at the meddling in which he proposes to indulge: seven constituencies straddling the London boundary and nine constituencies selected quite arbitrarily. It is left to speculation as to why the constituency of Huyton, which is bigger than four of them, has been left out. In both these meddling proposals the Home Secretary is suggesting several changes in Essex. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the sinister significance of tinkering with Essex? It was Essex County that originally gave rise to the expression "gerrymander"—Essex County, Massachusetts. It happened when Governor Elbridge Gerry ignominiously consigned his name to posterity by delineating a boundary so that a constituency formed the shape of a salamander.
Does the Home Secretary realise that he runs the risk of creating a new word, "Callamander"? Does he want to go down in history as the man who reversed in this country the continuing trend of improving the working of Parliamentary democracy? After the progress of the


last 100 years towards universal suffrage and improvements in its application, made through Representation of the People and Distribution of Seats legislation, here is the Home Secretary deliberately causing a setback in this course of events.
Is this the picture of a party of reform of the kind painted by the Secretary of State for Social Services? After this, does the Home Secretary think that the Government's reputation can remain untarnished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—when they seek to advise new and developing countries about their constitutions, voting rolls and related matters? This is putting the clock back. One has to go back nearly 200 years to find political morality at this level. The Government, by their "Callamandering", are breaking the law for their own electoral advantage. No doubt the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity would describe it as a compromise.

Hon. Members: Copper-bottomed.

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friends say copper-bottomed. The Government will go down in history as the only people which tried to save their skins by coppering their bottoms. They have been changing the rules during the match. If the Prime Minister were the President of the Football Association it would be like changing the rules at half-time so that his favoured team could have two extra men for the second half of the game.
The decision to go ahead with Greater London, to continue the football analogy, is like deliberate handling of the ball in one's goalmouth. The effect is the same, it attracts derision, it seldom saves a goal—from a penalty—and it is a sign of desperation. The proposals in the Bill will not save the Government from electoral defeat, but will, rightly, bring derision upon them.
Why are the Government stooping to such petty, discreditable and unavailing behaviour? As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we are witnessing the decline and eclipse of the Labour Party, its palpable failure to handle the economic situation, the accumulation of massive overseas debts, the abject surrender and reversal of announced policy on industrial relations to avoid party civil war; and

now it is reduced to the stratagem of "Callamandering" the constituencies.
It is one thing to break promises and pledges on policy, as the Government have done, but it is another deliberately to deprive the people of this country of the advantages of a system for maintaining fair Parliamentary representation. The Government should withdraw the Bill.

9.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): My right hon. Friend has outlined—

Mr. Walter Clegg: What about Huyton?

Mr, Rees: I will come to Huyton in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman can get Huyton out of his mind for 20 minutes, I will come to it. I will try to deal with a number of points raised, and I will try to ignore that jolly, public school joke about "Callamandering"—very funny, but I will ignore it. I found it easier to listen to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), because his speech was written in last week's New Society. There was just a little bit of ebullience and a little bit of pinching from New Society.
I never thought that I would find the right hon. and learned Gentleman pinching from New Society. If it had been Old Society it would have been more suitable. The other touching thing was to find the right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, formerly the hon. Member for Oxford, quoting Mr. Herbert Morrison. With tears in his eyes he was quoting Herbert Morrison—there would have been tears in Herbert Morrison's eyes if he could have heard him. I can only confirm what my right hon. Friend said, that the right hon. and learned Member misunderstood the point. In column 1613 of the debate on 10th October, 1944, what Mr. Herbert Morrison was referring to was the supremacy of Parliament over periodical reports, which is precisely the same thing as we are talking about now.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) came to the point that my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General referred to, that what was being done was not illegal. He did not take the explanation of the Attorney-General, and I put


the point to him again. In the first part of the Bill we relieve the Secretary of State of the obligations, in Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act that "as soon as may be"—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen got it wrong last time, perhaps if they listen they will get it right now. What we have done is to relieve my right hon. Friend of the responsibility of "as soon as may be" after a Boundary Commission Report having to lay the Report, and we have provided that no proceeding shall be taken under this Act in consequence of these reports. This is good law—[Interruption.] It is good law, even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like it. We have put it to the House of Commons, and it is for the House to decide.
The supremacy of Parliament—indeed, the supremacy of the House of Commons—is involved; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the House of Lords.

Mr. J. T. Price: On the question of the supremacy of Parliament, and as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone is sitting in his place scowling, may I remind him that he would not be sitting there if this House, in its supremacy, had not passed an Act of Parliament to allow him to shed his peerage.

Mr. Rees: That is a most interesting point, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken it to heart.
Concerning Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn had the point absolutely clear. We will consider local government reorganisation schemes both in Scotland and in Northern Ireland at 31st March, 1970, and if there are to be boundary changes there will have to be an Order.
Coming to the point raised by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), subsection (1) also provides that no further interim reports for a particular constituency under Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act shall be made before the next general review report.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the long-term future in constituencies like his. We have to deal with the situation as it is now and Parliament in its wisdom has had to—[Interruption.] We are tak-

ing into account the size of constituencies now of 100,000. The situation is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman makes out. But Parliament in its wisdom has to take into account the implications of the Redcliffe-Maud Report which were not taken into account in 1958. If there were any catastrophic changes in the sizes of constituencies, Parliament in its wisdom would have to look at the situation again.
To those of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite representing constituencies in the London area, Clause 2(4) would allow interim reports in any area of the G.L.C. Clause 2(4) preserves the power of the Boundary Commission to make interim reports on the area of the G.L.C. Section 2(3) of the House of Commans (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, lays down the rules. The Boundary Commissions keep themselves informed, as a matter of routine, of factors that affect the continued conformity with the rules. They get information about local authority boundary changes and changes in the sizes of electorates. They also receive representations from local authorities and political parties. This will be the case again in the area of the G.L.C.

Mr. Speed: What about Huyton?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman should get one thing right. He has a fixation on the Prime Minister. Huyton is not in London—[Interruption.] I am dealing with London now. I will come to Huyton in a moment. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot wait for the point.
Under subsections (2) and (3), the next general review reports which, under the 1958 Act, are not due until 1979–84—the right hon. Gentleman will remember the point because he made play about 1984—may be accelerated as soon as the Secretary of State sees that it would not be premature by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation in that part of the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary has an obligation to look at local government changes. This is the main core of the Bill. Parliament does not have to accept the Boundary Commission Report. In 1958, Parliament in its wisdom gave a final date for the proposals. Now, Parliament in its wisdom must face up to the implications of Redcliffe-Maud. Only on 11th June, when the Commission's Report was published, it made a number


of highly detailed and revolutionary proposals which are bound to affect the electoral map.
There are 58 unitary areas—[Interruption.] I will come to the Government point next. I cannot do it all in one mouthful. The Commission made certain recommendations—61 main authorities and eight provinces. Whatever the precise result—I accept what the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) just said—no one can doubt that a great change will take place, that Redcliffe-Maud will have great effects from now on.
The hon. Member said that there was only a small effect, but my researches—and much of the information of the hon. Member for Meriden was supplied by the Home Office—show that, as a result of the recommendations, as of now, 94 constituencies will be affected by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. The Commission was unanimous in its conviction that only in this way could local government be more efficient and humane. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House that it does not mean acceptance in detail but acceptance in principle. This is the reason for the time, because Redcliffe-Maud is essential to the Government's argument in deciding what to do.

Sir D. Glover: The House so far has not even taken a decision on RedcliffeMaud in principle. The whole of this debate is based on the idea that we have agreed to it almost in detail.

Mr. Rees: What, so far, the debate is concerned with is the fact that there will be profound changes in local government in the years to come. I would acquit entirely the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone of ever using words at the end of a debate which he did not mean. Yet, in the debate on the Children and Young Persons Bill, which the Home Office presented, he mentioned "local government changes which are shortly to be made". Was he wrong on that occasion? Does he want to switch and say that he would not have put that argument then?

Mr. Hogg: Since the hon. Gentleman asks me to intervene, although he has such a short time left, I will answer him. I was right that time and I am right this.

Mr. Rees: I must say, it must be marvellous living with the right hon and learned Gentleman.
There are great changes to be made in local government—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Huyton?"] I have not forgotten Huyton. I wanted to come to it at the end of my speech: I wanted to mention Bexley at the same time, that is all.
There are great changes to be made outside the G.L.C. and other areas, and it is right to postpone the constituency changes until we know what forms this will take. The Government's view is that we should not go through all the upheaval and uncertainty which would be involved in implementing the Boundary Commission proposals and then the Redcliffe-Maud changes. Constant reference is made in the English Report to the avoidance of constant changes in constituencies. We think that this is right. To change before the Redcliffe-Maud Report was received would be unreasonable. The Boundary Commission did not and could not take that Report into account.

Mr. Peter Hordern: rose—

Mr. Rees: I am sorry; I had five minutes shorter than I was promised, and I want to get to Huyton. Subsection (1) and part of the Schedule deal with London. The only point about London is that originally the Commissioners felt that 93 constituencies would be desirable, but because of the continued decline in the size of the Greater London area they eventually suggested 92 constituencies. Subsection (2) makes the consequential alterations in certain areas contiguous with the Greater London Area to deal with the seven straddling constituencies.
At present there are 98 constituencies wholly in the Greater London Area, including seven that straddle. There are minor changes in Sevenoaks and Reigate. There is a reduction from 107 constituencies to 98 and from April, 1970, elections will be on a single-member basis.
Sadly, a number of by-elections pending in the London area will be based on the existing constituencies. [Interruption.] I use the word "sadly" for a good reason. I would not have thought that it was amusing at this time.
The question of abnormally high electorates has been mentioned. The Boundary Commissions will look at the four pairs of constituencies and also deal with Cheadle. Their report will need an Order in Council. What about the other large constituencies? If they went down to 80,000 many other such constituencies would be contiguous and it would be necessary to look at several groups of constituencies. [Interruption.] The hon. Member wanted to hear this, but the Opposition Chief Whip does not want him to listen. I understood that it was important to the hon. Member and to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman). I was asked the meaning of the words "approximately equal". Clause 3(1) requires the Boundary Commission to divide the relevant constituencies into new constituencies with approximately equal electorates. The intention of the Clause is that the Commission should produce new constituencies with electorates as equal as possible to the average figures without straining to produce arithmetical equality at the expense of neglecting local ties.
Many hon. Members raised the question of the reduction in the voting age. Figures are available showing that for the whole country those aged between 18 and 21 represent a proportion of about 6 per cent. of those aged 21 and over. For obvious reasons the figure for Wales is about 5·8 per cent., and in the East Midlands the average is 6·3 per cent. The figure does not vary much from the average of 6·1 per cent. A figure of 8 per cent. has been referred to. In certain areas the percentage will be higher, I agree.
As for small constituencies, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that the small size of some constituencies did not concern the Government as much as the large size of some constituencies. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn represents a constituency with an electorate of 35,000. Is he asking for such constituencies as his to be made larger?
The reasoned Amendment of the Opposition does not mention gerrymandering, but that is the case that hon. Members opposite are trying to make. I am entitled to ask on what facts they rest their case. Nobody tonight has given

one fact to prove any gerrymandering. Perhaps there is a Tory Central Office brief. Perhaps all the Tory constituencies have been written to and asked, "What will be the effect of the changes?". I think that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) put the position correctly in respect of local representations as a result of reports already made when he said that he was extremely sceptical about suggestions from a political point of view. Perhaps there is an analysis on which hon. Gentlemen can make this plain in 1964 terms, or 1966 terms, or 1969 terms, or was it July 1969 or May 1969? What are the figures on which they base this argument of gerrymandering? Nothing has been revealed tonight.
My right hon. Friend said that at the last election there were 40 seats with majorities of less than 1,000. Some psephologists who say what the results should be have never walked the streets, have never knocked on doors, and had never been at a count. They cannot possibly tell what the result will be in these fine constituencies. The figures to which hon. Gentlemen refer show an advantage to six to the Tory Party, or an advantage of 20 to the Tory Party. In the face of the imponderables involved in an election, none of these figures mean anything at all.
The hon. Gentleman based his case on an article in New Society. At the bottom of the page the article referred to
The Callaghan boundary changes in political terms",
and started by saying:
1964 actual results—Labour 53; Conservative 47; Liberal 1.
That adds up to 101, but in 1964 there were only 98 seats in the London area, so this great prophet which the hon. Gentleman quoted was three seats out before he started. I did not read any further, but it is wrong. The hon. Gentleman says that it is right. The only thing right about it is that it says that the Leader of the Opposition will lose his seat in Bexley.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the peroration.

Mr. Rees: A curious light came over the Chamber as the eyes of certain hon. Gentlemen lit up. Reference has been


made to Huyton. Anyone who thinks that the secession of one little part will make a difference to the fundamental result in Huyton does not know the facts in that area.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman is challenging me. I am prepared to accept that the Boundary Commission's changes are not to the advantage of the Ormskirk constituency, but never in one paragraph have I ever said that Kirkby should remain in the Prime Minister's constituency, because it is already too big.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The main point is that it makes little difference to the Prime Minister. I commend this view to the House. The Opposition have put party

advantage before constituency changes. I invite—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Minister.

Mr. Rees: I should not presume to advise the other place about their position. I remember a former Member of Hexham, who was Speaker, saying that we should treat them with due deference, and that is what I do this evening. I invite the House to reject the Amendment and to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 301.

Division No. 304.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B.


Allason, James (Hemed Hempstead)
Dance, James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Astor, John
Dean, Paul
Holland, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hordern, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, Richard


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howell, David (Guildford)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Doughty, Charles
Hunt, John


Batniel, Lord
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.


Batsford, Brian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eden, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bell, Ronald
Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Emery, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Errington, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Fortescue, Tim
Kimball, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Foster, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kirk, Peter


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kitson, Timothy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lambton, Viscount


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lane, David


Braine, Bernard
Glyn, Sir Richard
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brewis, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Brinton Sir Tatton
Goodhart, Philip
Legge-Bourke, Harry


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bryan, Paul
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Longden, Gilbert


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Grieve, Percy
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMaster, Stanley


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Channan, H. P. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McNair-Wilston, Michael


Chataway, Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Clark, Henry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maginnis, John E.


Clegg, Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marpies, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Neil


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Angus


Corfield, F. V.
Hay, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Costain, A. P.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lioned
Mawby, Ray


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Rt, Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crowder, F. P.
Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hiley, Joseph
Miscampbell, Norman




Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Monro, Hector
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tilney, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Robson Brown, Sir William
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Neave, Airey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Nott, John
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Onslow, Cranley
Russell, Sir Ronald
Weatherill, Bernard


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Scott, Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wiggin, A. W.


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sharples, Richard
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Silvester, Frederick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Pardoe, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Percival, Ian
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Woodnutt, Mark


Peyton, John
Speed, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stainton, Keith
Wright, Esmond


Pink, R. Bonner
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wylie, N. R.


Pounder, Rafton
Stodart, Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Mr. R W. Elliott and


Prior, J. M. L.
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Jasper More.


Pym, Francis
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Albu, Austen
Cronin, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Alldritt, Walter
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Anderson, Donald
Daly ell, Tam
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Archer, Peter
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hannan, William


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnett, Joel
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Baxter, William
Dewar, Donald
Haseldine, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hattersley, Roy


Bence, Cyril
Dickens, James
Hazell, Bert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dobson, Ray
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Hoffer, Eric S.


Binns, John
Driberg, Tom
Henig, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Dunn, James A.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Blackburn, F.
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hooley, Frank


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boston, Terence
Eadie, Alex
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John
Howie, W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
English, Michael
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Brooks, Edwin
Ennals, David
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ensor, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fernyhough, E.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Buchan, Norman
Finch, Harold
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Chapman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Coe, Denis
Galpern, Sir Myer
Judd, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Kelley, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ginsburg, David
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)









Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Moyle, Roland
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Lawson, George
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Leadbitter, Ted
Murray, Albert
Silkin, Hn. S, C. (Dulwich)


Ledger, Ron
Neal, Harold
Silverman, Julius


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Newens, Stan
Skeffington, Arthur


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Slater, Joseph


Lee, John (Reading)
Norwood, Christopher
Small, William


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oakes, Gordon
Snow, Julian


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Oram, Albert E.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lomas, Kenneth
Orbach, Maurice
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Loughlin, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Swain, Thomas


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Symonds, J. B.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Taverne, Dick


McBride, Neil
Padley, Walter
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McCann, John
Paget, R. T.
Thornton, Ernest


MacColl, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tinn, James


MacDermot, Niall
Park, Trevor
Tomney, Frank


Macdonald, A. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tuck, Raphael


McGuire, Michael
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Urwin, T. W.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mackie, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mackintosh, John P.
Pentland, Norman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wallace, George


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Weitzman, David


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Whitaker, Ben


Manuel, Archie
Rankin, John
White, Mrs. Einene


Mapp, Charles
Rees, Merlyn
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilkins, W. A.


Marquand, David
Richard, Ivor
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Maxwell, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P' c' as)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mendelson, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Millan, Bruce
Roebuck, Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winnick, David


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rowlands, E.
Woof, Robert


Molloy, William
Ryan, John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Moonman, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Mr. J. D. Concannon and Mr. Alan Fitch.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 246.

Division No. 305.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Blackburn, F.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Chapman, Donald


Alldritt, Walter
Boston, Terence
Coe, Denis


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Peter
Boyden, James
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Ashley, Jack
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Brooks, Edwin
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cronin, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dalyell, Tam


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Barnett, Joel
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Baxter, William
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Beaney, Alan
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Callaghan, Rt. Hn, James
Delargy, Hugh


Binns, John
Cant, R. B.
Dell, Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James




Dewar, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Ledger, Hon
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St. P' c' as)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roebuck, Roy


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Rowlands, E.


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacDermot, Niall
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Ty ne)


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackie, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Skeffington, Arthur


Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Slater, Joseph


Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Snow, Julian


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt, Hn. George


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Hannan, William
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Tomney, Frank


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


Haseldine, Norman
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Varley, Eric G.


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hazeil, Bert
Moonman, Eric
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Henig, Stanley
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert
Wellbeloved, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Newens, Stan
Whitaker, Ben


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Howie, W.
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter
Winnick, David


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Park, Trevor
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred








NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitcheif, David (Basingstoke)


AIlason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monro, Hector


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Awdry, Daniel
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nott, John


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crowder, F. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minste


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' rrC' dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tapsell, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tliney, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmiilan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Nigel
Marpies, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Foster, Sir John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Wiggin, A. W.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fite, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick







Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wright, Esmond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Woodnutt, Mark
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Worsley, Marcus
Younger, Hn. George

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Committee Tomorrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the alteration of

Parliamentary constituencies under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958 to be suspended until the submission of the next general reports of the Boundary Commissions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, if by virtue of that Act effect is not given to a Boundary Commission's report made in the year 1969, of any such addition to their expenses as may be attributable—

(a) to any provision advancing the time when they are to make their next general report; or
(b) to any provision requiring them to make further recommendations for the division of constituencies now having abnormally large electorates.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

10.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People Regulations 1969, dated 2nd June 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It has occurred to me that we might take at the same time the corresponding regulations for Northern Ireland and Scotland, unless there is any objection from any part of the House. If not, so be it.

Mr. Rees: There must be no question of my trespassing north of the Border. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be happy to deal with any Scottish points which may be raised.
The purpose of the three sets of Regulations is identical. They are all in similar terms, allowing for differences to take account of the legal systems in the various parts of the United Kingdom. The Regulations are made under powers conferred upon my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Representation of the People Act, 1949. Their purpose, like that of the earlier Regulations which they replace, is to spell out in more detail than is desirable in a Statute the detailed procedure to be followed in various electoral matters, in particular the preparation and publication of the electoral register, absent voting, issue and receipt of postal ballot papers and registration of Service voters. In no point do they, or can they, go beyond the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.
Earlier this Session we had some fairly strenuous debates on the Representation of the People Bill. Now that it has become law, I am sure that we leave controversy behind and treat the Regulations for what they are, a useful piece of necessary but in itself uncontroversial machinery.
The new Regulations are needed because the passing of the 1969 Act has rendered obsolete the earlier Regulations which were made in 1950 following the Representation of the People Act, 1949,

and which have been several times amended since. Regulations are needed now because the authority of Parliament is required for the revised forms prescribed in Schedule 1. Some of these relate to the preparation of the electoral register, and in many areas that process begins a few weeks from now. Accordingly, the Regulations now before the House revoke and replace the previous Regulations to which I have referred and which are, to a large extent, reproduced word for word.
Most of the new and amended provisions of the Regulations have been made in consequence of the 1969 Act. A few changes have also been made to give effect to recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference and of the Home Secretary's Electoral Advisory Conference, which, although well within the scope of the Act, did not need to be spelt out in it.
The main changes are listed in the appended Explanatory Notes. Hon. Members will, no doubt, notice the close similarity, if not identity, of wording in all cases. It may be convenient if what I add by way of further explanation is directed to the first set of Regulations applying to England and Wales.
I should, perhaps, explain that whereas the England and Wales Regulations and the Scottish Regulations contain provisions, for example, on registration and absent voting applying to local government as well as Parliamentary elections, the Northern Ireland Regulations apply only to Parliamentary elections to the Parliament at Westminster. Elections to the Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont and to local authorities in the province are the direct responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government and not of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The difference, incidentally, accounts for the difference in numbering of the Northern Ireland Regulations. My right hon. Friend announced that a White Paper had been issued today in Northern Ireland on why the changes are to be made in the franchise there.
As far as England and Wales are concerned, as with the Act of 1969, various parts of the Regulations come into force at different times. No part of them has effect till 14 days after approval by both Houses of Parliament. The greater part


of them does not come into effect till 16th February next year when the electoral register for 1970 comes into force, but, as I have explained, the Regulations are needed now so that preparation of the 1970 register can go ahead.
Perhaps the most generally interesting provisions are the Regulations relating to voting age. I refer to Regulation 8 and Form A, the householders' canvass form prescribed in Schedule 1. The House will recall that under the new Act the voting age on and after 16th February becomes 18 and that electors will be able to vote on and from the date they attain that age. Accordingly, Regulation 8(2) provides for annotating the register with the date of the 18th birthday in respect of those entered in it who will become 18 during the life of the register, and Form A, in Part 2, is designed to elicit the information necessary if this is to be done.
In Committee on the Representation of the People Bill there was considerable discussion of registration, particularly of students. The right hon. and learned Gentleman informed he wanted to raise a point on this, as also did my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard). I see that the N.U.S.—I think it is—is to launch a campaign—a very proper activity, provided the students are registered in the right place. That, given the long history of the law of residence, is not always an easy question to determine.
What the students want is to get their people to register. I undertook in Committee that the giving of guidance on this matter would be considered in relation to administration. This has been done. Form A already gave some guidance to the householder whose duty it is to fill it up. It advised him to include in the form
those who normally live at your address but are temporarily away—
for instance, as students. This should cover the large number of students whose residence—I use the word in its technical sense—is their family or home address. That, we felt, went as far as was possible in a document which goes to every household and which must be kept simple. Form A, prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Regulations, is accordingly unchanged in this particular.
But the administrative guidance which the Home Office proposes to issue shortly to electoral registration officers has, in the matter of residence, been largely rewritten to take account of the problems presented by the lowering of the voting age and the consequent bringing on to the register of many thousands of students who have not appeared in it before. This should enable sensible decisions to be taken in individual cases. As throughout the field of residence, the question is one of fact to be determined by the electoral registration officer, subject to appeal to the county court.
With students, as with everyone else, the facts vary. Many, perhaps most, are in the situation I have just mentioned—their residence is at their family or home address. Others, who have no such address, or who live in a house or flat in the university town, may as a matter of fact reside in that town, particularly if they are married or are following postgraduate studies. It would be wrong if I were to try to deal in detail with the great variety of cases which are possible, but I would like to make it clear that "residence" at a university is not necessarily the same as "residence" for electoral registration purposes, and that merely being a student is not of itself an automatic title to voting in the place where one pursues one's studies.
An important change is to be found in Regulation 28. In Committee, I said that this would be covered in the Regulations, and this has been done. The Regulation sets out in detail how the electoral registration officer is to go about correcting a register after it has been published, under the increased power conferred on him by Section 7(2) of the Act of 1969. This will still be a limited power, in that it will extend only to putting right clerical or printers' errors which have occurred in the final stages of preparing the register for publication.
It will be as necessary as ever that the public, if they want to be sure of being on the register, should inspect the electors lists—which may, under Regulation 10(5), take the form of a single draft register, if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary consents—while they are on public display between 28th November and 16th December in each year. If a name is not in the lists and no claim for inclusion is made then, the registration


officer will have no power to add the name by way of correction under the procedure in Regulation 28.
Regulation 29 makes the detailed provision necessary for giving effect to the extensions of absent voting facilities made by Section 6 of the 1969 Act to, for example, the wife of an elector who has such facilities on "business" grounds, and to people prevented by religious observance from going in person to a polling station on ballot day.
I dealt with this last category at some length on the Report stage of the Bill. I pointed to the need for supporting evidence, and said that the Regulations would require it. Regulation 29(2)(a) accordingly provides that an application to be treated as an absent voter on the ground of religious observance will be allowed only if accompanied by a certificate signed by a minister of the applicant's religious denomination. The form of certificate is prescribed in Form S of Schedule 1.
Part V of the Regulations deals with the registration of service voters. That category will now include members of the British Council and their wives or husbands, as the case may be.
Most of these, as of the other, changes mentioned in the Explanatory Note to the Regulations result from the Act of 1969. As I said earlier, however, there are one or two changes which do not flow directly from that Act. These are the provisions for a draft register instead of electors lists in Regulation 10(5); for replacement of a spoilt postal ballot paper in Regulation 51; and for an increase in the maximum penalties, particularly that for failing to give information, or for giving false information, for registration in Regulation 75.
The first of these was suggested by the Electoral Advisory Conference. The other two give effect to recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I should perhaps also say that the England and Wales regulations as a whole were discussed in draft with the Electoral Advisory Conference, and that the other two sets of regulations have also been the subject of consultation.
It would be wrong at this time of night to weary the House with a complete catalogue. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State, Scottish Office, is available to deal with Scottish points. I am available to deal with other points. But, as I have said, the regulations as such ought not to be treated as matters of controversy, limited as they are to machinery rather than to policy. On that footing, I commend the regulations to the House, and hope that the House will see its way to signifying the approval which we seek.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Wokingham): I am sure that in general terms—and I stress "in general terms"—the House will welcome these regulations. I have only one point to raise, which was touched upon by the Under-Secretary of State, and I hope he will be able to assist me. I refer to his remarks about Schedule 1, on page 30 of the English regulations, "Return by occupier as to residents", that is to say, those people in the house on the qualifying date.
I refer specifically to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the students. We are obviously moving into a totally new situation and it is a matter over which the House will want to take a great deal of care. We on this side are looking forward with keen anticipation to the participation of 18-year-olds and above, and of students in particularly, in the next General Election. We welcome that very warmly indeed.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the campaign which is being efficiently organised by the National Union of Students which, quite rightly, is seeking to ensure the greatest number of their members should register as voters. Neither he nor I would disagree about that. It would be unfortunate if there were to be a clash between the student body and the electoral authorities of any size which would turn upon the electoral registration form. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the circular issued by the National Union of Students says:
Where entitled to do so, the N.U.S. aims to ensure that students register to vote in their college constituencies rather than in the constituencies of their parents' home.
If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly the administrative memoranda will make it as clear as such a document can, that the right place for the student to be registered is not in his college or university constituency, but in his home constituency.
That is a very valuable point extracted from the debate. There are a number of reasons why that is wise. The first is that in any one year a General Election or by-election at which such a student will vote, could, and might easily be, at a time of year when the university or college was not in session in the constituency. For example, the last General Election, which, as the House will recall to its sorrow, was held on 31st March, 1966, was at a time which, if it had been held in the academic year 1968–69, would have meant that only one university would still have been up. The exception is the University of Stirling, which operates a two-term year, but I am not competent to comment on Scottish matters.
In seven by-elections out of 29 held since the last General Election the dates have been either 27th or 28th March. Only six universities or university colleges had not gone down by those dates in the 1968–69 session. The effect of the campaign being operated by the N.U.S. might well lead to a substantial number of its members not being able to exercise the vote on which they are so keen. There is a second reason. If I have understood the matter correctly, if a student is registered at his home address he would be entitled to cast a postal vote, if he were likely to be away from home—if he were either a student or undergraduate.
If, on the other hand, he were registered at the university or college, and at the time of a General Election or by-election he was away on holiday the Regulations would not permit him to cast a postal vote. This is an additional reason why it is directly in the interests of the students that they should be registered at their home address and not at the address of their university or college.
I quite see the problems of drafting, but does the hon. Gentleman really feel that it is sufficient that the only reference to this matter in the regulations is contained in the notes to the form going to the householder? The only reference is that
You should include—
(a) Those who normally live at your address but are temporarily away
such as a student.
Would it not be for the general convenience of the average person—and the object of the House must be that the average person understands the regulations—if there was a negative provision that he should not include a person who is with him temporarily as a student? I make that suggestion because I do not want to see the student body, in its enthusiasm, surge forward to register at its college or university address, then a number of test cases to come before the county courts, and ill-feeling result because those cases have been turned down and the students in question have lost their chance of operating their votes at their home addresses because the qualifying date has passed.
I hope that the Minister will feel that that is a suggestion made in a constructive spirit.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I shall be brief. I urge my hon. Friend to consider publicising that part of the Regulations which particularly affects students.
Recently, out of curiosity and interest because I had raised the matter in Committee, I asked a number of wardens of halls of residence, to whom I was speaking on a completely different topic, what their interpretation of the current Regulations was. They gave a wide and wonderful variety of answers. They are not normally given any instruction in this matter. They are simply given the same form that is dropped through the letterbox of the ordinary householder and they have to use their judgment in the light of the instructions on it.
With the introduction of several hundred thousand new electors who are students, leaving aside other 18-year-olds, many of whom will be in halls of residence, if there is any major confusion, this constitutes a very serious matter.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) put his finger on an existing confusion which, in the eyes of the National Union of Students, if not quickly eradicated, could widely spread throughout the student community. I was attracted by the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman raised about some kind of negative instruction saying that there should not be included in the register students who are in residence merely during term time.
I do not know how it would be done technically, but perhaps through the Home Office and the local electoral registration offices instructions could be given to university authorities. By that I mean the registrars of universities and also the wardens of halls of residence who would normally handle this matter where students are collectively housed in any large building.
I feel very strongly, as a matter of principle, that a student, in terms of political logic, should be registered at his normal place of residence. We know that there are exceptional difficulties about research students. But a student's normal place of residence will be his home; not where he is studying at a college or university. I think that both sides of the House have agreed that this is not widely understood. That is why I plead for publicity.
My last point is even more important. I ask that consideration be given to publicity through all channels of communication to the country as a whole that 18 year olds should be included, even on the next Parliamentary registrar. Many people in my constituency are not aware that this will be the law of the land when the next electoral register is prepared. Indeed, when I discussed this matter with some men in a local working men's club in New castle-upon-Tyne they had not the slightest clue that the Act had been passed. They did not even know that it had been discussed in this House. The comment may be made, "Surely, people read newspapers". Some do and some do not—and they do not always read the small print. I thing that this again is a matter on which the Home Office should approach electoral registration officers to ensure that there is widespread publicity in the locality about this provision. I am sure that the political parties will do that as well, but through the medium of television and by other means it should be made known that it is now the right of every citizen over a certain age to take advantage of this innovation in our democratic system.
It would be disastrous if there were a whole host of trial cases and conflicts between student bodies on the one hand and wardens of halls of residence on the other, and even between political parties which may feel that there is a political

advantage one way or the other if students happen to be in their constituencies. In my constituency—and I am referring to them not as individuals but as a body—students seem to go on and off the electoral register year by year on no consistent principle except the interpretation of the Regulations by the person who happens to be the warden of the halls of residence during that year.
There was confusion under the old Regulations. The new Regulations are clearer, and I hope that they will be given adequate publicity.

10.51 p.m.

Sir Donald Kaberry: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and those of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), but I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that people are not aware that young people of 18 now are qualified to go on the electoral roll. I am sure that between now and the qualifying date the fact that they are so entitled will be given sufficient publicity by the national Press, through the medium of television, and by all the political parties of every hue and colour. It may be that when these young people cast their votes some of us may not find ourselves here, and it may be that those constituents who are at present ignorant of the fact that they are entitled to vote at 18 may decide to change their Members at the next election but that is a matter between the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.
I agree with what has been said about making it abundantly clear what "residence" really means. In some constituencies where there are large student populations they are not wholly centred, alas, on halls of residence. Some towns and universities still have to rely largely on lodgings, and one can see all kinds of things happening at registration time in October when forms of this kind are let loose on a number of householders who will have to interpret the forms as best they can.
I think that the instructions on the back of the form could be amplified. Paragraph 1 tells the occupier the people who should be included on the form and that he should include those who normally live at the address but who are temporarily away. That is reasonably clear,


but it would be better if there were an entry under paragraph 2 which said, "Do not enter members of the Forces and the other four categories set out there, and also students who are temporarily away in residence at their university or school, or wherever it may be", If that were made clear there could be no complaints afterwards.
I direct the Minister's attention to one other small matter in connection with Form R, on page 54, which is headed:
Application to vote by post owing to change of residence.
We argued this point in Committee, and I think that it was also discussed in the House. I am a little unhappy about the wording of Note 3 which deals with the claim to vote owing to a change of residence within the same borough or within the same county borough. I read Note 3 with some alarm, because it says:
This application cannot be allowed if the address at which you now reside is in the same borough and constituency as the address for which you are registered…
I would like to see words "borough and" deleted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member served with me on the Conference and he knows that he cannot amend the Regulations tonight. He can denounce them, but he cannot amend them.

Sir D. Kaberry: I was not trying to amend them, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the fact that I am a little annoyed about this wording. I would like it to be made clearer. We must bear in mind the fact that it is possible for a person to walk from a constituency in the North to a constituency in the South and still be in the same county borough and yet be eight or nine miles from his normal polling district. Why should not he be entitled at some stage to vote by post. If he goes over the county borough, even if it involves a distance of only 100 yards, he is outside the borough and he can vote.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard (Oxford): I also want to draw attention to the question of the registration of students. I will not conceal the fact that I have a direct personal interest in this matter, as have one or two other hon. Members. I represent a constituency in which I have a fairly

small majority of about 2,000. We have about 10,000 constituents, and it is clear that the question whether or not they are registered and the way in which they will vote can determine my fate. I believe that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) is in a similar position.

Mr. David Lane: A better one.

Mr. Luard: These Regulations make no difference to the present situation. It has always been the case that graduates should normally be registered in their home constituencies, however long they may spend in their university towns, while post-graduate students are normally registered in their university towns. The situation is very different today, because we shall have all students over the age of 18 voting and therefore a much larger number will be on one register or another.
It is logical and reasonable that the undergraduate student should be registered in his home town rather than his university town. I am not sure whether I take the point made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). It seems to me that the election can just as easily take place at a time when the student is deprived of his vote because is studying in his university town, if he is registered in his home town, as vice versa. I am not sure that it is correct that he would not normally be able to get a postal vote under those circumstances.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is it not at least clear that up to now the House has refused a postal vote to anybody if he is on holiday? In the case that the hon. Member poses, the student would clearly be on holiday.

Mr. Luard: I am not quite sure that the Regulations have always been interpreted in that way. It is true that until now my constituents over 21 have registered in their university towns, despite the fact that the normal Regulations provide for the reverse. My point is that the student's main interest is in his home constituency. This is the city, town or region about which he knows most, and to which he will probably return, at least for a period, after his time as a student is finished. It therefore seems reasonable that he should cast his vote there.
Secondly, it would doubtless be possible for an organisation such as the National Union of Students to organise a campaign, as it now intends to do, to induce students to register in certain constituencies. In my constituency and in Cambridge, where there are narrow majorities, this could swing the balance one way or the other. For these reasons, it is important not merely that there should be a general presumption that a student should register in his home town rather than his university town, but that this should be clear in Regulations that he and each householder and whoever else is making registrations is bound to follow.
The third reason why it seems logical and reasonable that students should register in their home towns rather than their university towns is the point of view of the constituencies and the university towns concerned. We are past the age of the old, standing feud between town and gown, but it remains the case, even today, that most of my constituents in Oxford would like to feel that they are determining their own affairs and undertaking the election of their own Member without the participation of those who they do not regard as normally residents of the city and who would be entitled to determine the representation of the city in elections if they were allowed to register. In my case, where this could determine the result, it is a reasonable feeling, and it would cause resentment if a sudden flood of students on to the register were to determine the result of the election.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am following this with great interest, but the hon. Member should link what he has to say with these Regulations. They do not prevent an Oxford University student registering at Oxford or in his native town.

Mr. Luard: It would be far more reasonable and logical for a student to register in his native town than in his university town. The residents of a university town should not have their affairs determined by the presence of student voters. It is important that the Regulations should be framed unmistakably and should not be frustrated by a campaign like that on which the National Union of Students are intending to embark.
The notes say:
You should include
(a) Those who normally live at your address but are temporarily away, e.g. on holiday, as a student or in hospital…
The word "normally" embraces much, and if the landlord or college, or anyone entitled to register voters, felt strongly, possibly for a political reason, that he should register a student at a university town on the electoral register, it would be open to him to do so under this wording. For this reason, I agree with hon. Members who said that there should be a contrary instruction saying, "Do not enter somebody who is not resident and is a student."

Mr. John Lee: That cannot be the case until there has been a test case.

Mr. Speaker: It will help the Chair and the reporters if the hon. Member will address the Chair.

Mr. Lee: Surely the situation is more difficult than the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) pointed out? The matter is of such importance that there is bound to be an appeal and we may have to await the decision of the House of Lords before we know the position.

Mr. Luard: There is nothing new about the situation. What has altered is the age of those concerned. There have been test cases in the last year or two. Until now, the situation as described in this debate has been upheld. The position should be made clear, but because it can be of such importance in deciding an election—

Mr. Stanley Henig: I follow what the hon. Member says when he suggests a contrary instruction, but surely there might be a difference between the normal student who spends six months at his university town and six months at what he describes as his parental home and the many university students who, once they enter a university, never spend more than the odd weekend at their parental home? It would be unjust to say they must vote there, even though they only spend two or three days a year there.

Mr. Luard: There will no doubt be exceptions. I presume that this is why the wording is as it is, and why the


Under-Secretary used an equally vague statement of the rule. He said that residence in a city as a student would not normally entitle someone to be registered. But the student could quote this to say that although it was not a normal case, he wanted it applied in this case.
The law should say that the student should be registered in his home town and it was up to him to prove that he was resident in the university town for almost the whole year and establish himself as an exception to the rule. He should not be able to decide for him-self to spend an extra two or three weeks in the university town, thereby spending the majority of the year there and getting himself registered there.
The present Regulations, as laid down in the notes to Schedule 1, are so vague and flexible that the students can determine for themselves or a body like the N.U.S. could influence the matter. Could not these notes be made more clear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but we cannot amend these Regulations tonight.

Mr. Luard: I am not moving an Amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am asking my hon. Friend to look again at the Regulations to see whether some better form of words cannot be found for the future—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not understood what I said. To find some better form of words would be to amend the Regulations. We cannot amend them tonight.

Mr. Luard: I said that this would be for the future, Mr. Speaker. At present, the Regulations give rise to doubt and ambiguity and enable certain circumventions of the law. They are not satisfactory, and I hope that in future they will be looked at again and amended so that all those concerned with the registration of voters will be in no doubt about their obligation. I hope that the Home Office will do everything it can to publicise the correct interpretation of the Regulations, so that landlords, students and the N.U.S. will be in no doubt that students are under a legal obligation to be registered in their home towns.

11.8 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the doubts expressed from

both sides and the Under-Secretary's vagueness—although, no doubt, he intended to be categorical—perhaps the regulations should be withdrawn to take these real points into account, and then relaid. From the careful way in which the Under-Secretary chose his words, it is clear that he had doubts, and the argument between his Friends confirms that the position is not as categorical as it should be if this is to work in the best interests of the nation.
Votes at 18 are now the law of the land, and there are great student bodies in almost every large centre. The technical colleges and the boarding schools are involved. If this is left vague and the 18-year-olds at Repton can get themselves on to the electoral register in that area, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) might lose his seat. The 18-year-olds at Arundel—a much better school—might also have a part to play. I do not want to take that unfair advantage. Like Sir Francis Chichester, I like to live dangerously.
Doubts have been proved that what the Minister, the Government and Parliament intend may not be given effect. The National Union of Students, or at least the militant members of it, will use this issue to get the sort of publicity upon which so many of us and them thrive. There is a real risk arising from the vague words which the Minister had to use and the wording of the Regulations that militant members will seize upon them to make the issues which have been referred to by the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard).
I am not thinking in terms of pushing this issue to a vote in order to make my point, but, bearing in mind the problems which could flow from this if the words are not made categorical—leaflets could be sent round putting in the negative instruction, as has been suggested, which might help—unless the Government are absolutely satisfied that the Regulations will have the effect Parliament intended, I believe that even now they ought to be withdrawn and resubmitted in words that would bring them in order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order. He can argue that this set of Regulations ought to be withdrawn. He cannot amend them tonight.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is why I am using those words, Mr. Speaker. because I heard how tough you were on the hon. Member for Oxford, and quite rightly so. But in order to avoid back benchers having to be chastised by you, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Regulations should be withdrawn and re-issued with these minor amendments. This would settle the doubts of hon. Members opposite and meet points made by my hon. Friends.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: You have generously allowed a wide-ranging debate on this, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker never generously allows wide debates. The debate can only be on the Regulations.

Mr. Henig: I hope it will be in order to refer straight away to the N.U.S. It is unfortunate that the N.U.S. should be elevated into the position of No. 1 ogre or No. 1 bogyman. The feeling has been expressed that we must be careful lest the N.U.S. exploits this order to register lots of people at any one place because heaven knows what would happen in any one city.

Mr. van Straubenzee: rose—

Mr. Henig: If the hon. Member will allow me, I am trying to continue this argument. This is not the way we should conduct our debate on this issue. We have to decide where it is right and proper for students to cast a vote and not whether we fear the N.U.S. will get too many students to vote in any one place
I want to challenge the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and others. Students fall into a number of different categories, and that is why, although I am concerned at the vagueness of the Regulations, it seems that the Minister is right to persist with them. For the situation will, therefore, be unchanged and the matter in that sense would have to go to the courts to be interpreted.
The situation is not wholly satisfactory, but at the moment it seems the best we can get. Students living in a university town will be living in halls of residence or lodgings or possibly in flats.

A flat holder is probably a ratepayer. It would be hard to argue that someone paying rates in a community was not living in it even if he was away for part of the year. Other people would fall into that category who are not students
The second kind of differentiation might be between undergraduates and graduates. There is the idea that someone pursuing an undergraduate course is only doing so for part of the year. This is an idea which, as a former university teacher, I would not encourage, but it seems widespread. On the other hand. the graduate student may, in effect, be devoting his working life to his work at the university so that the odd weekend or week away would be really a holiday. He would be making his life in the university town.

Mr. Luard: There is already a distinction between the graduate and the undergraduate. The graduate is normally registered in the university town for the reason my hon. Friend has given—that he spends most of the year there. The average undergraduate spends less than half a year there in the case of Oxford and other universities.

Mr. Henig: That is the position, but I challenge the idea that there is necessarily a black and white distinction between the two. Rather are there shades of grey.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As an old university man, I am fascinated by these academic arguments, but they must be linked to the Regulations.

Mr. Henig: I think that they are, Mr. Speaker, because there is grave concern among hon. Members about exactly what is implied in the Regulations and whether all students are going to register in order to vote. The argument I am putting is that the suggestion that undergraduates should automatically be registered to vote at their home town rather than at the university town—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see anything in the Regulations which prevents an undergraduate registering either at his university town or at the town where he is living.

Mr. Henig: There has already been a great deal of discussion about the precision or otherwise of the Regulations


and the suggestion that perhaps the Regulations ought to be rejected because it is not clear on this point. It seems to me that this question of clarification has led already in the debate to the question as to where it is right and proper that students should cast their votes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening with patience. Whether it is right for an undergraduate to vote is a question not bound by the Regulations.

Mr. Henig: I am certain that that is a judgment that is going to be widely respected inside and outside the House, Mr. Speaker, but it would seem to me that in effect you are saying that there can be no further discussion of this problem of where it is right for students to vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have Regulations which have a lot of things in them. We can discuss all the things in the Regulations, but the franchise is not among them.

Mr. Henig: Am I to understand that it is not in order to have any further discussion on the point of whether students should vote and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be ruled out of order if he attempts to discuss it? If that is so, I will willingly sit down. Does this ruling apply to others, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The last thing Mr. Speaker wants to do is to ask any hon. Member to sit down. We have a number of Regulations here. One of them, which I understand the hon. Gentleman is discussing, is Schedule I—Form A of which is
Return by occupier as to residents.
The hon. Gentleman can talk about that.

Mr. Henig: That is what I am trying to talk about, Mr. Speaker. If one refers to Note I (a) there is the question of
Those who normally live at your address…
and whether or not someone who is a student in a particular place does normally live at the address in the area in which he is a student or whether he normally lives in the area where his parents live and where he lived before he became a student.
There is an area of doubt as to what Note I 9(a) means. I am suggesting that the doubt does not mean that the Regulations should be withdrawn and replaced by another set of Regulations, then it should mean, and be taken to comprise, that those students who do not normally live for much of the year at the parental home—those who at the age of 18 are at university and whose home has been the parental home but have left that home and have become resident in the university town, perhaps in a flat as ratepayers—are therefore living in the university town as their normal home. Prima facie it is there that they should vote. On the one hand, perhaps we really need greater precision as to the length of time. Would it be possible to withdraw the Regulations and present another set of Regulations prescribing something about the length of time during which a person must be at the address at which he is to be registered? Elsewhere in the Regulations it is said that in the normal way people are registered on one particular day—that day on which they are resident at the address. This note says that somebody who is away but who is normally there can be registered. Certain universities have started their term by 10th October in any year and certain universities have not, but I do not think that this is the sole relevant point. Here there is a genuine problem.
It may well be that my hon. Friend will have to withdraw the Regulations or that we shall have to turn them down because of lack of precision. It would be wrong to hold that, because it has been generally accepted in the past that students who have left home altogether, who spend only the odd weekend or week at home, who are living in university towns, who are paying rates to those university towns, who are perhaps making an important contribution to the life of those towns, should nonetheless vote from their parental homes, they should continue to do so.
It is important that my hon. Friend should address himself to this point, or he should say, "We do not know what the new position is. We are happy to leave it to the courts to interpret that wording". If he is not happy to do this, he must say precisely what he takes this wording to mean. If he has no precise interpretation himself, I suggest


that he withdraws the Regulations and presents new ones. I urge him to differentiate between students who are temporarily away at university and those who have moved from home to live in the university town. The latter category live in the university town and that is where they should be registered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has been addressing himself to a note to Schedule 1, which I quote for the benefit of the House:
You should include—
(a) Those who normally live at your address but are temporarily away, for example on holiday, as a student or in hospital (including informal patients in ps}chiatric hospitals)".

11.22 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I welcome these Regulations in general. I welcome in particular those of the Regulations which give effect to matters which I and my colleagues on this bench have raised previously.
I regret the enthusiasm which has been evinced by the hon. Members for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) to dispel all possible doubt about where people do or do not live. I agree with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) that it would be helpful if the Government were to issue advice in the form of explanatory leaflets. Where a person lives for this purpose is a matter of doubt. Naturally, the Regulations recognise this.
The possibility of people being able to choose where they live for electoral purposes raises fascinating speculations. These are, rightly, not contained in the Regulations. Any attempt to spell out in detail that a person lives in a certain place because he was born there, or because he has lived there for so many days, or because he has slept there, would be thwarted. Any person who wishes can remove himself to an area and say, "I live here. This is my permanent address" before the register is compiled—this is perfectly legal—and leave immediately afterwards. Any attempt to thwart that kind of behaviour, however well intentioned it might be, would be doomed to failure.
I welcome the Regulations as they are. I support the plea for more publicity, but any suggestion that the Regulations should be removed, and that we should

have something more precise in an attempt to define something which by its very nature is not precise, I would deplore.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: It is a great pleasure to me to agree, at least on this issue, almost 100 per cent. with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard). I very much welcome what the Under-Secretary of State has said to clarify the rather bare wording of Form A and the note which you have just read out, Mr. Speaker. I strongly urge that the memorandum of guidance which the Under-Secretary has mentioned should be as clear as possible and should be as widely publicised as possible.
I support the general sense of what has been said by most hon. Members. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) has left the Chamber, because I believe that he was completely distorting the discussion by implying that the N.U.S. had been described as a sort of bogyman. I commend the N.U.S. campaign to remind students of their rights. I supported the lowering of the voting age to 18. We know that several million young voters will be entitled to vote for the first time, and it is vital that they should feel involved and should take the opportunity to cast their votes.
But I believe that the N.U.S. is somewhat unwise—and this is where we return to the note and to Form A—in advising students to try to register in their university constituencies. I will explain why in a moment. I am arguing against my personal interest here, but I do not feel the same nervousness as I sensed the hon. Member for Oxford feels. I have no fear of a swarm of students registering at Cambridge and adding about 10,000 to the existing electorate of 60,000; if that did happen, I believe that I would gain the support of a large number of them and that my majority at the next election would be even higher than I hope it will be even without this additional student electorate.
I hope that the memorandum of guidance we have been promised will make it absolutely clear, as I sense is the feeling of the House, that the majority of students—and I say "majority" because, as the hon. Member for Lancaster said, there are some students whose interests


are mainly in their university towns rather than a home residence, but one would regard this as an exception to the general rule—should not register, and vote in their university towns but should do so in their home towns.
I would support that recommendation for three reasons. First, I suggest that legal precedents so far are in its favour. I know that it is difficult to disentangle what the various learned judges have said, but as I read most of the legal opinion in the cases that have been decided hitherto, the interruptable residence of a sudent in a university town should not count as residence for electoral registration purposes.
Secondly, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) it is in the student's own interests to register in his home constituency and not in the university constituency. Some doubts have been expressed about the postal vote. Suppose there is a student with his home in Leeds who, and I speak without disrespect to northern universities, is attending Cambridge. If he is registered at Leeds, he can, during term time, as I understand it, get a postal vote to vote in Leeds. If he is on vocation he votes, naturally, in Leeds. But if he is registered at Cambridge and not at Leeds, he will during term time be able to vote at Cambridge, but, in the vacation, he will not be able to vote at all because he is not eligible for a postal vote. On these grounds, if I have interpreted the position aright, it is clearly in the students' own interests to be registered in their home constituencies.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds with that argument, would he not concede that the student should have the right to determine where he wishes to vote? If I understood the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument, he thinks it proper to deprive the student of that right in that he urges that the student should vote in his home town. It is obvious that the majority of elections generally fall during the university term, and thus the student is required to use his postal vote—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is suspiciously more like a speech than an

intervention. We are discussing some Regulations. What advantage the student takes or does not take of the Regulations is a matter for the student.

Mr. Lane: I am not trying to deprive any students of anything, but am merely suggesting points of guidance that they should be given in this difficult situation. I do not think that the hon. Member was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham was speaking, but my hon. Friend quoted a considerable number of cases where elections have fallen in the vacation, including the last General Election.
If I may mention briefly my last reason, I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Oxford. I do not want to make too much of this point, but there is, I think, a risk of a feeling developing in university constituencies that if too many students are registered and able to vote, there may be a disproportionate influence on the result by a body of electors who are known to be transient and to have no enduring stake in that community. This will not do good to town-and-gown relations. It could do harm. Nor do I think that it will do good—I do not want to exaggerate the point, but it should be remembered—to the general quality of our democracy if we allow to develop what many people would regard as a distortion in the make-up of the electorates in several constituencies.
I am not discouraging students in any way—quite the contrary. I stress also that this is no party matter, as tonight's debate has shown. It has shown above all the need to clarify the position, not only to students and university authorities, but to the public generally. Apparently, that has not been possible in the Regulations. I welcome very much what the Under-Secretary said and I hope that the memorandum of guidance will, as far as practicable, set all doubts at rest.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we are discussing some Regulations and that the debate has so far concentrated on Schedule 1, some Notes and Note 1 (a). The question is whether these Regulations be adopted.

11.32 p.m.

Sir David Renton: The British people have complete political freedom—only for a few seconds in every few years; that is, when they


enter the polling stations and put their crosses against the names of candidates of their choice. When they have done that, they have surrendered their destiny to whichever political party has most candidates elected at a General Election There are, of course, by-elections, to which the regulations also apply, but if there is a substantial majority at a General Election they feature less largely in the destiny of the people.
Some of us are surprised that the electors, in spite of the advice given to them, do not take more trouble sometimes to discover where their country's interests and their own interests lie. Be that as it may, the regulations deal with the actual mechanism of parliamentary democracy and they are, therefore, of great importance to us and to all the people. If the people are to use efficiently their rare opportunities of enjoying complete political freedom, it is important that the established machinery should accurately reflect their choice in every individual case.
The regulations are based partly upon precedent; partly on the Representation of the People Act, 1969, which was to some extent, earlier this Session, the subject of controversy, which we do not wish to raise again now; and partly on the recommendations of the conference over which you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessor presided for no less than three years and of which I was a member throughout, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) and other hon. Members.
The fact that the regulations are based upon those three foundations should, broadly, commend them to the House, as the Under-Secretary of State has already suggested should be the case, but the regulations also have an advantage, which he did not mention, of having been scrutinised by the Home Secretary's Electoral Advisory Conference on which all political parties, including the Liberal Party even, are represented. In passing, may I say how characteristic I thought it was of a member of the Liberal Party when the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said that he did not wish to have doubt dispelled.
With those foundations, it is hardly surprising that the discussion tonight has not consisted of a general attack on the regulations. I think it fair and true to

say that there is only one point on which they have been found to be at fault, and that point affects students. Even with regard to that point we have to take these wide-ranging regulations as we find them, not as we might like them to be: we must take them or leave them. I think that the Under-Secretary of State, who will, no doubt, be given the leave of the House to speak again to reply to the debate, should deal very seriously with the points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, including the hon. Members for both Oxford (Mr. Luard) and Cambridge (Mr. Lane). Their views must undoubtedly be respected, about the difficulties which have arisen in regard to students.
The crux of the matter seems to me to lie not in the body of the regulations, but in the notes to Schedule 1 on page 32. I must confess that if I were a householder with a student normally living in the house—and I was in that position up to a few months ago—I might find it difficult to interpret paragraph I (a). But that is not the whole of the matter, because in paragraph 1 (c), if I found myself as a landlady with lodgings in a university town I would find that I had a duty to register lodgers. This is, no doubt, a point to which the hon. Gentleman will wish to address himself and advise the House, and perhaps, through advising the House. to give some guidance outside to the electoral registration officers, landladies and others who will have a duty to interpret the notes appended to the Schedule to these Regulations.
This, I think is a difficult matter, and one on which it is not easy to be dogmatic, but in considering the advice which he is going to give to the House I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the following factors. The first one is one which has not been mentioned in the debate, so far as I have heard, namely, that these regulations apply not only to parliamentary elections but to local government elections as well. I wonder whether the National Union of Students and those who are advancing their cause really consider that the students, who—I use an alternative phrase to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—are "birds of passage" in university towns and cities where they are temporarily in residence, really wish to take part


in local government, or to influence local government, and whether, being birds of passage, they ought to influence local government to that extent by being registered in large numbers and voting in local elections in university towns. This is a matter for consideration.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that a number of students may spend as long as six years in a particular university. This is probably longer than the period of time that 7, 8, 9 or 10 per cent. of ordinary residents spend in a city.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, but he has made a point that is not characteristic of the situation in which most university students find themselves. I spent four years in the University of Oxford.
I refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Oxford—alas, we do not have university Members today. When we did they made a valuable contribution. I suppose that the N.U.S. might hope that we might get university representation by the back door or in reverse. As the hon. Member for Oxford pointed out, in that city the university students are in residence for less than half of the year. In Cambridge they have "the long vac term" and are there for more than half the year. But whether they are there for less or more than half a year, they are birds of passage, except those relatively rare examples of people who, having done their normal undergraduate courses, perhaps then go on to do postgraduate courses. They may be there as long as six years and they may become well-identified with the place. There is no reason why those people should not be registered at least as lodgers: meanwhile, they may have married and become residents.

Mr. Henig: rose—

Sir D. Renton: I do not want to give way. The time is running out and I must leave an opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State to wind up the debate.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind these sorts of consideration. It is a somewhat confused picture. There are, of course, solutions to it. One was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee):

that there should be a greater use of the postal vote for students. Some of the solutions involve an amendment to the regulations, and, therefore, they do not help us tonight. Other solutions involve no amendment to the regulations, but merely direct to the attention of those concerned the opportunity which the law provides in these regulations. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to assist the House by clarifying the matter in the light of our interesting discussion on students.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I should like briefly to reply to the debate. I am tempted to take up the point about democracy, but I shall not.
What the National Union of Students is doing is good sense. Students play an important part, and the new Chairman of the N.U.S. is a former President of the Union at Leeds. As a former member of the N.U.S., I know that the students will play an important part. We must see to it that when they register for the vote, they register in the right place. Copies of the memorandum on guidance to electorial registration officers will be placed in the Library.
For students who are resident it is not possible to draft a provision to prohibit a student from being registered in his university town. Note 1, on Form A, gives numerous definitions as to the meaning of constructive resident. If it is suggested that a student actually in residence at a university should not be registered as an elector, that would go beyond any existing judicial decision. It would not be possible to deal with it in the way that is suggested.
If a student has a choice of residence it would not be possible, under the regulations, to limit his choice. A student is, in principle, no different from other people who have a family home and live elsewhere as well. It is beyond the scope of the regulations to lay down the law of residence, whether of students or others. This may be an interesting exercise for a Private Member's Bill, but it is not a matter for these regulations. The law of residence is the law of residence and no bit of paper going out will say what that law should be.
This leads to the point of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar


Nicholls). It is no good withdrawing the regulations. It would need an amendment of the Representation of the People Act or a Bill on the law of residence to deal with his point.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was, in general, right about postal votes. There is one caveat I would enter to his explanation. A student registered at home but at university on the day of the poll can obtain a postal vote on the grounds of his occupation. A student registered at university and away on the day of the poll because he is on vacation cannot vote by post on that ground. A student registered at university, and who has left the university on the day of the poll, can vote by post on the grounds that he has changed his residence. The question is one of fact, to be determined by the electoral registration officer, subject to appeal to the county court. Nothing that we do can affect that.
I see the point about publicity, made by several hon. Members. I will look at it. There is a difficulty in that the local registration officer is not an employee of the Home Department, but is employed by the local authority and we must take account of what the local political parties, on whatever side, do. They carry out publicity and use local newspapers.
Given all the discussions I am astonished that few people know that the 18-plus will be able to vote next year. It only goes to show. We in this place sometimes think that the world is hanging on to our every word. I will look at the question of how we inform universities and hostels about the general situation. The best thing is to do it through the university authorities, because it is in the hostels or halls of residence that this arises. That was the major point discussed, and I hope that I have set people's minds at rest. There is no point in taking these regulations back, because it would not affect the law of residence.
There is the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) about lodgers. I can see that point and I do not know what to suggest. I will consider what can be done. It could lead to people getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. It did not occur to me.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry), I concede that I had to look at this matter once or twice. There has been a change. Whereas people cannot get a postal vote inside one constituency, they can get such a vote as a result of the earlier Act, inside the borough. As he knows, from the bottom end of South Leeds to the top of the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is longer than just moving a few yards out of my constituency into Batley and Morley. I see his point, but not everyone understands legal jargon.
I hope that because of this explanation. however unsatisfactory—but absolutely right on the law of residence—hon. Members will not seek to impede these regulations. I will most carefully read the points raised and see what we can do to implement them, particularly the point about publicity. I hope that the House will accept the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Representation of the People Regulations 1969, dated 2nd June 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th June, he approved.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1969, dated 2nd June 1969 [copy laid before the House. 12th June], approved.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1969, dated 3rd June 1969 [copy laid before the House, 12th June]. approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Orders of the Day — CHALKHILL ESTATE, BRENT (RENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Joseph Harper.]

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: On 14th May the Brent Borough Council decided not to apply a rent rebate scheme, which has been the practice of that council for some years, to a new estate on Chalkhill. This decision was probably taken against the best advice of the excellent officers who have served the borough for so long.
That simple act is the cause of my drawing the attention of the House of Commons to the consequences which have flown and will flow from that very awkward decision. In my view, it shows the majority party in Brent completely devoid of humanity and compassion in dealing with what has been the greatest problem in my constituency and with which I have regaled the House from time to time over the last 10 years.
I believe that it is irresponsible because it is pursuing a doctrinaire Conservative political policy. It is incompetent because of its failure to protect the interests of the ratepayers. It is entirely untrustworthy because it is withdrawing solemn undertakings given in public both in the High Court and at Ministry public inquiries on which compulsory purchase orders of property have been secured. It places snob values above human needs, property above people, and pounds, shillings and pence above family life.
On those grounds I am opposed to the decision, and I hope that it will eventually be changed.
I will not weary the House with the intensity of the problem, because I have described our housing difficulties on frequent occasions. However, I should like to quote from a letter of 16th June which I received from my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on one sector of the housing problem in my area. My hon. Friend wrote:
There are 56 families (256 persons) in temporary accommodation and a further 14 families accommodated outside the Borough. Of the 123 families who applied for admission in the last quarter of 1968, only 23 were admitted—a ratio significantly below the average, suggesting that they are less able than most authorities to meet the demands on them for temporary accommodation.
This is one hard sector of the problem. But because Brent has one of the greatest housing problems in London, it also has the greatest costs, and these have to be met. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, when he was at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, for the first time since I have been a Member of Parliament daylight started to emerge with the tremendous programme that was introduced by the Labour Administration in 1964 for the redevelopment of South Kilburn, Stone-

bridge and Church End in my constituency.
These schemes will provide for a total of 2,873 families to be rehoused. This tremendous problem would take at least a quarter of a century if it were not for the foresight of the previous Administration in having this Chalkhill estate which, at present, has 1,281 units almost ready, and another 368 will be ready by January next year.
Because of this scheme a rent rebate scheme was envisaged, and with this it would take about five years to crack the hard nut of the problem which I have been trying to tackle. It was intended to provide a decanting area for slum clearance in Willesden, improvement areas, and comprehensive development areas.
To substantiate why I say that the council has gone back on its promises, I refer to the public inquiry of 16th October, 1968, into the Church End development area conducted by the inspector, Mr. Oswald. The council, in paragraph 53 of its case, said:
The necessary rehousing of existing occupiers…will be ensured by the completion of the council's extensive redevelopment at Chalkhill…here a total of 1,622 dwelling units are under construction.
That was the reason why the compulsory purchase order was granted.
In my submission to the inquiry I expressed concern about whether any revision of the rent rebate scheme would mean that Chalkhill would be too dear for tenants decanted from Church End. In reply, the inspector said, in paragraph 199:
Mr. L. Pavitt's comments reflect an understandable wish to see fair play for displaced persons and others, but the Council state that their rent rebate scheme will afford help as necessary to individual cases.
The fact that the rent rebate scheme is not to apply is a complete negation of that undertaking.
No rebates mean that only about 60 families can afford to be decanted from the Stonebridge and other areas. In fact, it means that before we see the kind of redevelopment that we want in Stone-bridge about 20 years will have passed. These people are the salt of the earth. Stonebridge residents, both in wartime and in peacetime, are second to none in the contribution they have made to this country and its economy.
The Tenants' Association went to the town hall last Thursday, and as a result they learned three things. First, the council has no idea how many can afford to go on to the Chalkhill estate in the event of no rent rebate system. Second, it is estimated that it will be at least another 10 years before families can be rehoused in the next phase of the Stone-bridge redevelopment scheme. Third, there was the implied threat that the new flats in Stonebridge Stage 3 are likely to be treated in the same way as they are proposing to treat rents for the Chalkhill estate.
Another major problem in my area is Curzon Crescent, a large estate built many years ago, which is overdue for improvement and which has had all the social problems in the world. In the first phase of redevelopment about 100 families will need to be rehoused, but they cannot afford exhorbitant rents, and the whole scheme is jeopardised because of this policy at Chalkhill.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Tricker, of 22 Hillside. Stonebridge, wrote to the housing department in May. In his letter he said:
I cannot possibly accept the tenancy. A rent of £9 8s. 10d. a week out of my weekly wage is absurd when I am a lower-paid worker…
A welfare officer called last week and said my present accommodation is deplorable.
Now that I am the last remaining tenant in the condemned property, I and my family are subjected to additional hazards, such as drain stench and various insects. This can be confirmed by the doctor who was called in last Friday to my baby who was covered in bites…
I suspect that "insects" is probably a euphemism for bugs and fleas.
The council has panicked on its financial policy. The district auditor reported in January that large sums of money were justifiably spent. He gave the figures of £217,000 due to acquisition and improvements which afterwards were to be let at good rents; £210,000 loan charges for capital outlay not yet producing revenue; £60,370 salaries of staff engaged in capital works; and £67,450 pre-letting expenses. But what the council is seeking to do is to throw in the kitchen sink to maximise the amount of costs chargeable to the housing revenue account to avoid decanting from my area to Wembley.
This is ignoring the whole question of urban renewal. When there are 16 houses

in a row, the street is not paid for by the council tenants. Lighting is not paid for by the council tenants, but if there is a storey block, lighting and amenities have to be paid for by the council tenants. Council tenants build up the assets in the community. They pay their rents all their lives for properties which they will never own, but which remain a splendid asset for the rest of the ratepayers.
In his report, the district auditor found that rents were not low in my borough in comparison with other London boroughs. He can say that again. They are quite high. If one compares the housing accounts of the London Borough of Brent with those of other London boroughs, one finds that we are all in the same boat. Nevertheless, if there is a heavy housing problem, one is able to manage the housing revenue account in such a way as to provide houses for the people. It is difficult in the short-term, but in the long-term it yields dividends.
In his budget speech, Councillor Swannells, the leader of the Labour group on the council, said:
The sum of £987,395"—
nearly £1 million—
is shown as Urban Renewal…Some part of the expenditure which has to be charged in the first instance to the Housing Revenue Account is eventually used for open space, health centres, or even educational purposes.
Why should council tenants be the only ratepayers to meet the expenses of these amenities?
The leader of the council, Alderman Lee, recently made a public statement in which he said:
The Council would have been prepared and indeed still is prepared to apply a rent rebate scheme to these properties had the Minister of Housing and Local Government been prepared to co-operate in helping the Council to offset some of this rate burden by allowing the property to be operated by a housing association acceptable to both the Minister and the Council, and which would have had agreed nomination rights.
What nonsense that is. If rent rebates are applied to a housing association, the cost to the ratepayers will be just as much as if the council controlled it themselves, and, in addition, there will be the housing association's expenses.
In the same Press release a figure of £300,000 additional cost for Chalkhill was given. This gives the case away entirely as to the additional expenses for


the administration of the Chalkhill Estate. This £300,000 indicates that the council itself knows that that 95 per cent. of the occupants would have to have a rent rebate scheme. These are the people for whom this estate was built. This shows that the only way in which we can successfully decant from the areas which need redevelopment is to apply a rate subsidy.
I served in this House on the Housing Act of 1961 and the Housing Act of 1964. I am one of the strongest advocates of housing associations and housing cooperatives. I pressed for the extension of £100 million to be given by the Government for housing associations and I succeeded in pressing the case for housing co-operatives. But housing associations are complementary to and in addition to, and can never replace, the municipal housing which is needed for the people who are in urgent need of accommodation because of social conditions.
Already, the Government have done a marvellous job in my area, because this estate was given a 40 per cent. subsidy of the all-in cost of a dwelling exclusive of expensive site subsidy—and Chalkhill land costs as much as £80,000 an acre, which means that expenses are very high. Can my hon. Friend say what the Government will do about their subsidies if it finally transpires that this estate, instead of being used for the purpose for which it was built, becomes luxury flats which make no contribution to solving Willesden's housing problem?
I charge the council with being irresponsible to the ratepayers, because its policy means a tremendous loss of rates. If the Chalkhill flats have to be let on the normal economic system under a private enterprise effort it will mean that many flats will be empty for month after month, and no rents will be coming in. In my area of Stonebridge we have streets where already two-thirds of the property is empty and ready to be pulled down. We dare not put people in there because it would cost too much for rehabilitation, but the remaining people cannot be moved unless they can go to Chalkhill, and so we have thousands of pounds of Brent ratepayers' money tied up and not producing revenue, because we are not proceeding at the right speed in decanting from this area to Chalkhill Estate, which was built for that purpose.
I remind my hon. Friend that in complimenting my borough council on its strides since 1964 he said, of the previous Labour council:
It completely it the whole rate of its programme; t put a new urgency into it…were there to be a slackening of the pace, it would be a very great tragedy indeed, a tragedy not only for the people of Brent but for the whole of west London."—[OFFIcIAL REPORT, 25th March. 1969 Vol. 780. c. 1439]
I ask the Government to strain every nerve to prevent the tragedy which will inevitably flow from hiving off Chalkhill homes, and if I am unsuccessful in the effort I am putting forward tonight, and in the pressures which I am hoping that my hon. Friend will bring to bear on the Borough of Brent, I ask the people of Brent to serve a notice to quit on the present Tory administration at Brent Town Hall.

12.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): It is just over three months since we had a debate, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, about Brent's housing problems. It makes me sad to remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) began then by referring to the work he had done in collaboration with the then hon. Member for Paddington, North. What a great part they together played in forming the housing strategy for west London. It is a tragedy that Ben Parkin has gone from the service of this House and of his constituency since that debate.
My right hon. Friend has had an application from the Brent Council for a rent increase. He has not considered it yet and, therefore, anything I say tonight is entirely without reference to, or consideration of, that application. My right hon. Friend will make up his mind about that on the basis of the information he has.
There is little of what my hon. Friend said tonight with which I would quarrel in any way. He quoted what I said before about the Brent housing programme. I would certainly repeat that. The new Brent Borough did a tremendous job in getting such a housing programme going so quickly and completely changing the face of Brent's housing problem. It would be a real tragedy if that


programme was allowed to slacken and I will make it clear that I would regard that as one of the most dreadful things that could happen for Brent.
Once one allows a programme to sag, it is very difficult to get it going again. It is extremely important to keep a programme going and not only to have available plans for redevelopment but also to have decanting sites available, as my hon. Friend mentioned. That is one of the most important considerations as to why the programme should be continued.
Any programme of this size and speed in West London is bound to be done at a price and, undoubtedly, Brent has paid a good deal. I will not waste the time of the House by quoting figures but it is fair to say that Brent's costs have been high—but then, virtually all London housing costs today are high. Brent, particularly, has had to pay in terms of the housing revenue account and there has been a great deal to pay by way of rate contribution. That is one of the factors to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to Chalkhill. He had a Parliamentary Question to the Attorney-General about the undertaking. That is a matter of legal interpretation which is beyond my capacity or responsibility. The moral obligation remains, whatever the legal obligation. There is no doubt that the intention was that this site should be used for decanting and that it was an important part of the council's old housing strategy.
Therefore, whatever happens to it, unless other sites are immediately available, it will be a tremendous loss if this site is not used. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend did not think it right to agree to the alienation of it so that it would not be available.
My hon. Friend said that the rent rebate scheme did not apply to Chalk-hill. I understand that this is the proposal. Something else which I greatly regret is that it will not be brought within the rent pooling scheme, which is as important as the rent rebate scheme, which reduces the average rents, and, thereby, the amount of rebate, and spreads the load much more economically.
One thing which my hon. Friend quoted is very misleading. He said that

the council has said that it was my right hon. Friend's decision on Chalkhill which prevented the extension of the rent rebate scheme to these properties, as the council would have done had they been taken over by a housing association. This just does not hold water, because the council never applied for the Minister's consent to the disposal of the bulk of estate, the 1,400 dwellings. The investigation by its own officers convinced the council that this was not practicable, and the council conveyed this to my right hon. Friend in a letter on 8th April. It was only Stage 2–300 dwellings, which are particularly suitable for families with young children, which they wished to dispose of.
My right hon. Friend's decision on this smaller area did not increase the cost to the council on rent rebate, on the rest of the scheme or for that matter on the 300 houses themselves. The council is in just as good a position to give rebate to its own tenants as it would have been to housing association tenants. There are two possible advantages to keeping the houses within the housing revenue account. If the association charged higher basic rents than the council would have to charge automatically, the rent rebate amount would go up. If the scheme were within the housing revenue account and within pooling, the charge would be less. The assistance of the association by providing rent rebate schemes would mean that this would be a direct charge on rate contribution, because it would not be in a housing account—

Mr. Pavitt: And it would cost the ratepayers more.

Mr. MacColl: It certainly would not cost them less, and there would be a risk that it would cost them more, because later, if it were possible to even them out more and reduce the housing revenue costs, that would reduce the amount of the charge coming within the rates. On that point, I find it difficult to follow the council's argument.
There is one point to balance that. My information is that the intention at Chalkhill is not to charge the full cost rent, but to charge against rents the Exchequer housing subsidy. That is important from the point of view of my hon.


Friend's question, what would happen if this ceased to be effectively part of the council's housing provision, what would be the effect on the subsidy? The important question is whether or not the subsidy is being earmarked for Chalk-hill. My information is that it is intended to set off the subsidy to reduce the rents. The problem is one of reconciling a number of competing problems. I have mentioned particularly the one about keeping up the amount of housing construction which is going on and maintaining the council's programme, to which I attach tremendous importance.
Another is keeping down rent increases, which we all want. Yet another is preserving the rebate scheme and applying it to Chalkhill. I think that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that if Chalkhill has never been within the rebate scheme my right hon. Friend could not compel it to be brought within the scheme. He could make it a condition of any increases of rent that the existing rebate scheme was maintained, but not extended to new house building.
These are great and important problems and I am only sorry that the council has not been able to do more to help in this matter. I hope very much that it will think more about the implications of what it is doing. It seems that, at any rate, as far as the inquiry goes, the council is certainly under a moral obligation to see that everybody who is being displaced have available to them alternative accommodation. That means at a reasonable rent in the light of its own resources and incomes. I hope, therefore, that the council will feel that it has a moral obligation to do that.
In the cause of prudent housing management it would be far better to bring the scheme at Chalkhill within the rebate scheme and to pool the rents. But these are not matters upon which at this stage I wish to say more, because they are under consideration on the application for increases which my right hon. Friend has not yet directed his attention to.

Question put and agreed.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.